ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 
AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGM 
800KSTACKS 


CENTRAL  CIRCULATION  AND  BOOKSTACKS 

The  person  borrowing  this  material  is  re- 
sponsible for  its  renewal  or  return  before 
the  Latest  Date  stamped  below.  You  may 
be  charged  a  minimum  fee  of  $75.00  for 
each  non-returned  or  lost  item. 

Theft,  mutilation,  or  defacement  of  library  materials  can  be 
causes  for  student  disciplinary  action.  All  materials  owned  by 
the  University  of  Illinois  Library  are  the  property  of  the  State 
of  Illinois  and  are  protected  by  Article  16B  of  llUnois  Cfiminal 
Law  and  Procedure. 

TO  RENEW,  CALL  (217)  333-8400. 
University  of  Illinois  Library  at  Urbana-Champaign 


When  renewing  by  phone,  write  new  due  date 


jUL.  1  0  2C00 
OCT  1  -i  2001 


below  previous  due  date. 


L162 


I 


Prince  Hall 

Grand  Master 


Prince  Hall  and  His  Followers 


Being  a  Monograph  on  the  Legitimacy 
of  Negro  Masonry 


By 

GEORGE  W.  CRAWFORD,  32° 

Chairman  on  Jurisprudence 
Grand  Lodge  of  Connecticut 


Behold,  I  have  set  before  thee  a  door  opened, 
which  no  one  can  shut.— The  Scripture*. 


The  Crisis 

70  Fifth  Avenue 
NEW  YORK 


Copyright,  1914 
by 

THE  CRISIS 


To 

The  Most  Worshipful  Grand  Lodge 
of  Free  and  Accepted  Masons 
of  Connecticut 
this  Volume  is  dedicated 
by  the  Author. 


CONTENTS 


chapter  page 

Foreword   9 

I.    Prince  Hall   13 

11.    The  Masonic  Colonization  of  America     .  21 

III.  Right  and  Title   29 

IV.  The  Territorial  Argument   51 

V.    The  Erasure  of  African  Lodge  from  the 

English  Roll   67 

VI.    Argument  of  the  "Free-Born"  Qualifi- 
cation   73 

VII.    As  TO  Recognition   81 

VIII.    How  Shall  Negro  Masons  Treat  White 

American  Masons?   .91 

Bibliography   96 


Foreword 


A STATEMENT  of  the  case  for  the  legit- 
imacy of  Negro  Masonry,  from  the 
viewpoint  of  the  Negro  Mason  himself, 
is  the  principal  object  of  this  little 
book.  The  right  of  the  followers  of  Prince  Hall 
to  practice  "The  Royal  Art"  has  been  thrashed 
out  in  printed  volumes  before.  William  H. 
Upton,  sometime  Grand  Master  of  Washington, 
and  the  truest  white  friend  who  ever  espoused 
the  cause  of  Negro  Masonry,  has  written  a  very 
important  book  on  the  subject.  The  object  of 
that  book,  however,  was  to  vindicate  the  action 
of  a  white  Grand  Lodge  in  declaring  Negro 
Masons  descended  from  Prince  Hall  Grand 
Lodge  to  be  regular,  and,  inferentially,  to  prove 
that  such  Negro  Masons  are  entitled  to  ultimate 
recognition  from  their  white  brethren.  It  is  not 
surprising  that  a  white  Mason  is  not  able  to  con- 
ceive of  the  vindication  of  Negro  Masonry  with- 
out coupling  it  with  "recognition"  by  white 
members  of  the  Fraternity. 


Reward  as  the  justly  earned  approbation  of 
the  superior  white  race  is  the  unconscious 
mental  attitude  from  which  scarcely  any  white 
man  can  escape.  That  is  the  offence  which  our 
sincerest  white  friends  sometimes  quite  inno- 
cently commit  against  us  and  to  whom  our  intol- 
erance of  the  same  is  understandable  only  as  self- 
consciousness. 

The  Negro  Mason  is  not  interested  in  the  vin- 
dication of  his  legitimacy  merely  as  a  means  of 
justifying  a  claim  to  recognition  by  the  white 
Masons  of  America.  A  man  would  be  interested 
in  removing  the  stigma  of  bastardy,  not  so  much 
because  it  might  bar  his  reception  into  polite 
society,  but  to  vindicate  himself  in  the  eyes  of 
his  own  self  respect.  To  demonstrate  the 
groundlessness  of  the  claims  of  the  white  op- 
ponents of  Negro  Masonry,  with  a  view  of  in- 
fluencing a  renunciation  of  their  untenable  po- 
sition, is  a  peculiarly  appropriate  task  for  a 
white  man  of  the  ability  and  high  mindedness 
of  Grand  Master  Upton.  For  such  a  purpose  his 
book  is  admirably  conceived  and  done.  A  book 
stressed  to  such  an  end,  however,  can  not  be 
appropriated  by  Negro  Masons  as  the  official 
statement  of  their  case  without  a  resulting  mis- 


interpretation  of  the  true  inwardness  of  Negro 
Masonry.  There  are  both  place  and  occasion 
for  such  a  book  as  the  one  in  question,  but  it  can 
never  obviate  the  demand  for  a  book  w^hich, 
w^hile  stating  strongly  the  case  for  Prince  Hall 
Masonry,  shall  be  free  from  any  assumption, 
conscious  or  unconscious,  of  the  inevitableness 
of  white  patronage. 

In  addition  to  serving  the  purpose  outlined, 
the  author  cherishes  the  ambition  that  this  little 
volume  will  help  to  remove  the  handicap  under 
which  the  average  Negro  Mason  labors  when 
called  upon  to  defend  the  regularity  of  his  stand- 
ing— the  handicap  of  unfamiliarity  with  his  own 
case.  A  book  designed  for  this  purpose  should 
present,  succinctly,  the  salient  points  only,  with 
emphasis  properly  placed,  and  should  not  bulk 
beyond  the  interest  of  the  general  run  of  Ma- 
sonic laymen:  a  brief  on  the  law  and  the  facts. 
Such  a  book  I  have  striven  to  produce. 

The  character  of  the  subject  has  made  it  dif- 
ficult to  hold  this  volume  to  a  few  pages  except 
through  the  somewhat  free  use  of  technical 
language.  To  offset  this,  however,  frequent 
resort  has  been  made  to  phraseology  cur- 
rent and  generally  understood  among  mem- 


bers  of  the  Fraternity.  At  the  same  time,  I  have 
not  lost  sight  of  a  large  number  of  readers  other 
than  Masons  to  whom  a  subject  of  such  pro- 
found interest  should  appeal. 

I  have  not  attempted  a  history  of  Negro  Ma- 
sonry. That  has  already  been  done  satisfac- 
torily. Only  so  much  of  uncontrovertible  his- 
torical data  as  is  necessary  to  a  clear  presen- 
tation of  the  case  has  been  used;  and  for  such 
data  the  author  has  frankly  drawn  on  the 
standard  sources,  as  will  appear  from  the  ample 
bibliography  appended.  Again,  no  attempt  has 
been  made  to  elaborate  upon  every  possible 
question  of  Masonic  Jurisprudence  which  may 
be  involved.  A  treatise  could  hardly  serve  the 
purpose  intended. 

I  take  this  occasion  to  acknowledge  my  grati- 
tude to  those  certain  close  Masonic  friends  and 
colleagues  whose  constant  encouragement,  more 
than  anything  else,  is  responsible  for  this  little 
book. 

George  Williamson  Crawford. 
New  Haven,  Conn. 
July  15,  1914. 


I. 


PRINCE  HALL 

On  an  uncertain  day  of  March  in  the  year  1765, 
an  immigrant  boy,  seventeen  years  of  age,  landed 
at  Boston  from  a  British  trading  vessel  on  which 
he  had  worked  a  passage  from  Bridgetown,  the 
capital  of  the  Island  of  Barbadoes.  His  name 
was  Prince  Hall  and  he  was  the  son  of  an  Eng- 
lish white  man  and  a  mulatto  woman.  His 
mixed  lineage  assured  to  him  sufficient  Negro 
blood  to  identify  him  with  that  race.  Not  that 
our  subject  would  have  had  it  otherwise;  for  his 
unceasing  demurrer  to  the  treatment  he  received 
was  always  based  on  the  unrighteousness  of 
such  treatment  as  applied  to  the  Negro  people, 
and  never  because  it  arbitrarily  thrust  upon  him 
the  disabilities  of  a  class  to  which  he  did  not 
properly  belong. 

Young  Hall  at  once  attached  himself  to  the 
little  group  of  free  blacks  who  lived  in  and  about 
Boston  but  who  were  utterly  detached  from  the 
life  of  their  community.  In  matters  of  public 
concern  these  people  received  little  or  no  recog- 
nition and  for  the  most  part  were  left  to  their 
own  devices.  Such  employment  as  no  one  else 
cared  for  was  open  to  them  at  the  scantiest  of 

13 


wages.  No  adequate  provision  was  made  for 
their  education  and  not  even  a  missionary  inter- 
est was  taken  in  their  rehgious  welfare.  Colored 
people  were  not  even  welcome  in  places  of  public 
worship.  In  no  less  place  than  Boston,  in  the 
colony  of  Massachusetts,  originated  the  famous 
phrase  "Nigger  Heaven."  It  was  the  popular 
designation  of  that  part  of  the  high  rear  galleries 
to  which  Negro  worshippers  were  invariably 
consigned. 

The  same  attitude  which  denied  to  colored 
folk  spiritual  edification  on  a  level  with  white 
followers  of  Jesus,  within  the  church  houses, 
was  manifested  without  in  the  form  of  utter 
indifference  to  the  religious  needs  of  these  peo- 
ple. The  pitiable  neglect  of  the  spiritual  welfare 
of  free  Negroes  made  so  profound  an  impression 
upon  our  young  West  Indian  immigrant  that 
early  in  his  American  career  he  determined  to 
prepare  himself  to  become  a  religious  teacher 
and  leader  among  them.  Applying  himself  with 
characteristic  assiduity,  he  soon  acquired  an 
astounding  grasp  of  the  English  Bible.  He 
began  anew  the  rudimentary  studies  which  had 
been  put  aside  for  a  skilled  trade  in  his  island 
home.  Such  was  his  progress  that  five  years 
after  his  decision  young  Hall  was  ordained  as  a 
Methodist  minister. 

The  church  has  always  been  a  center  of  Negro 
life  and  the  Negro  minister  has  always  been  an 

14 


influential  factor  in  the  leadership  of  his  race. 
It  is  an  interesting  coincidence  that  the  first  two 
Negro  Grand  Masters  in  this  country,  Prince 
Hall  in  Massachusetts  and  Absalom  Jones  in 
Pennsylvania,  were  both  ministers  of  the  Gospel. 

Besides  affording  him  the  chance  to  display 
his  unusual  gifts  as  a  priest,  the  ministry  gave 
Prince  Hall  an  opportunity  for  the  larger  public 
activities  which  made  him  the  recognized  leader 
and  spokesman  for  his  people.  Physically  he 
had  few  of  the  characteristics  which  are  popu- 
larly associated  with  leadership.  He  was  small 
of  stature  and  his  features,  excepting  his  steel- 
gray  eyes,  were  almost  effeminate.  His  physical 
insignificance,  made  his  achievements  all  the 
more  remarkable  as  a  testimony  to  the  personal 
force  of  the  man.  In  those  days,  even  more  than 
in  these,  it  took  extraordinary  ability  to  get  an 
ordinary  hearing  for  a  Negro.  For  although  it 
was  about  this  time  that  Thomas  Jefiferson 
wrote  his  nice  piece  to  justify  the  American  re- 
bellion in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  yet  the  lot  of 
the  ordinary  man  of  color  was  not  that  which 
accorded  with  his  merits — **self  evident  truths" 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

The  position  of  Prince  Hall  on  most  of  the 
questions  vitally  affecting  the  Negro  people 
placed  him  far  ahead  of  his  times;  so  far,  in  fact, 
that  he  would  be  classed  with  the  radicals  even 
in  this  day.    The  abolition  of  slavery;  partici- 

15 


pation  in  the  government  by  black  men  upon 
terms  and  under  conditions  applicable  alike  to 
every  other  class  of  citizens;  equality  before  the 
law;  resistance  to  every  form  of  encroachment 
upon  the  rights  of  black  men;  the  education  of 
Negro  children;  the  right  to  be  let  alone;  the 
iniquity  of  public  insult:  such  was  the  platform 
of  this  Negro  prophet  who  was  born  a  whole 
century  before  Appomattox.  And  yet  there  are 
Negro  leaders  who,  a  half  century  after  "the  sur- 
render," are  not  ashamed  to  preach  contentment 
with  less. 

To  be  a  Freemason  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
i8th  century  was  accounted  a  rare  distinction. 
The  order  was  universally  patronized  by  men  of 
high  degree.  The  most  powerful  princes  in 
Europe  considered  it  no  derogation  to  their 
dignity  to  "level  themselves  with  the  fraternity." 
It  is  not  surprising  therefore  that  any  effort  to 
obtain  for  the  humble  freed  blacks  of  Boston 
admission  to  an  order  of  such  standing  should 
have  seemed  to  the  white  craftsmen  of  Massa- 
chusetts to  be  the  veriest  presumption.  One  can 
almost  imagine  the  popularity  of  the  phrase  "a 
white  man's  order"  as  epitomizing  the  attitude 
of  the  outraged  Colonial  Masons  towards  the 
petition  of  Prince  Hall  and  his  fellow  blacks. 

Yet  our  little  champion  steadfastly  refused  to 
read  into  the  sublime  principles  of  Masonry  any 
implication  of  race  proscription.    With  charac- 

16 


teristic  persistence  he  took  his  case  to  the  broad 
minded  British  who  administered  the  affairs  of 
the  Mother  Grand  Lodge.  These  same  British 
whose  villainies  Jefferson  immortalized  in  the 
"Declaration"  showed  themselves  to  be  freer 
from  pettiness  and  race  contempt  than  the  lib- 
erty-loving colonists. 

After  unsuccessful  efforts  to  obtain  recog- 
nition from  any  of  the  American  Masonic  bodies 
then  existing  in  and  about  Boston,  Prince  Hall 
and  his  fourteen  black  brothers  who  had  been 
duly  made  in  a  British  Army  lodge  stationed 
near  Bunker  Hill,  and  given  a  dispensation 
after  the  manner  of  the  day,  petitioned  the 
Mother  Grand  Lodge  of  England  for  a  warrant. 
The  petition  was  granted  and  a  warrant  issued 
September  29th,  1784.  A  few  years  following 
the  reception  of  this  warrant  were  enough  to 
show  that  this  African  Lodge  as  a  subordi- 
nate body  would  sooner  or  later  find  itself  in  a 
precarious  situation,  and  that  the  very  door  of 
Masonry  might  be  closed  to  Negro  Americans. 
The  general  movement  towards  independent 
Masonic  government  for  America  was  fast  gain- 
ing ground;  and  always  the  Negro  Masons  were 
ignored  in  any  plans  projected.  Therefore,  to 
perpetuate  the  high  privileges  which  had  come 
to  his  people  with  the  Constitution  of  African 
Lodge  No.  459,  Prince  Hall,  taking  the  needful 
steps,  duly  erected  the  Mother  Lodge  in  a  Grand 

17 


Body,  having  the  sanction  and  recognition  of 
England  in  so  doing. 

The  granting  of  the  Charter  to  African  Lodge 
No.  459,  Free  and  Accepted  Masons,  in  1784,  is 
one  of  the  great  events  in  the  history  of  the  col- 
ered  American.  Freemasonry  gave  the  Negro  in 
this  country  his  first  opportunity  to  find  himself; 
it  discovered  to  his  enfeebled  race  consciousness 
the  power  of  a  common  cause;  it  started  him  on 
the  road  to  self-hood.  Any  estimate  of  the 
marvelous  influence  for  good  which  the  fraternal 
organization  has  exercised  upon  the  life  of  the 
Negro  people  must  necessarily  be  a  tribute  to 
the  handiwork  of  Father  Prince  Hall,  who 
opened  for  them  the  door  to  the  greatest  and 
most  ancient  of  all  secret  societies. 

After  a  period  of  labor  all  too  brief,  the  first 
Grand  Master  of  Negro  Masons  passed  out  at 
the  South  Gate,  December  7th,  1807.  Like  the 
illustrious  Temple  Builder  of  old,  he  left  us  the 
legacy  of  unsullied  integrity. 

The  things  for  which  the  early  Negro  leaders 
fought  and  strove  may  sometimes  seem  ordi- 
nary when  measured  by  present  day  ideas  of 
what  a  man  ought  to  have.  The  sheer  capacity 
not  alone  to  enjoy,  but  to  demand  more,  in  our 
day,  is  proof  positive  that  the  world  moves  on. 
But  with  all  of  our  enhanced  capacity  to  enjoy 
and  to  demand,  the  example  of  this  upstanding 
man  of  color  comes  across  one  hundred  changing 

18 


years  to  the  Negro  Mason  of  this  day  as  a  chal- 
lenge, seeming  to  say:  "Crave  to  be  called  of 
no  man  'brother'  if  his  life  and  attitude  belie 
his  faith  in  the  significance  of  that  sacred  appel- 
lation— even  though  he  proclaim  himself  a 
Mason."  Next  after  a  vow  of  fidelity  to  our  high 
calling,  may  v^e  Negro  Masons  vow  a  loyalty  to 
our  self  respect — "so  help  us  God  and  haHdom." 


19 


II. 


THE  MASONIC  COLONIZATION  OF 
AMERICA 

The  beginnings  of  Masonry  in  America  bear  a 
strikingly  close  resemblance  to  the  early  politi- 
cal history  of  the  country.  Masonically  speak- 
ing, America  was  as  truly  colonized  by  the  Eng- 
lish as  it  was  politically.  Just  as  here  and  there 
English  settlers  planted  isolated  communities 
which  gradually  grew  and  expanded  into  a  na- 
tionality compounded  of  various  adaptations  of 
English  institutions  and  ideals,  so  also  did  the 
early  pioneers  of  the  craft  erect  in  the  widely 
scattered  colonies  Masonic  bodies  in  one  form 
or  another  which  eventuated  into  the  standard- 
ized American  institution  with  which  we  are 
familiar. 

The  first  Masonic  bodies  set  up,  whether  they 
were  private  lodges  or  whether  they  were  that 
Masonic  anomaly  known  as  Provincial  Grand 
Lodges,  were  all  instituted  as  subordinates  of 
the  Grand  Lodge  of  England,  from  whom  they 
derived  their  authority  and  to  whom  they 
yielded  unquestioning  obedience  until  England 
and  her  American  colonies  became  politically 
separate.    The  early  American  Freemason  did 


21 


his  work  with  as  Httle  thought  of  ultimate  Ma- 
sonic independence  of  the  mother  country  as  the 
early  colonist  had  of  ultimate  political  inde- 
pendence. At  the  same  time  he  evinced  the  same 
readiness  to  adapt  his  Masonry  to  the  new  land 
as  he  did  his  pohtics.*  The  result  is  that  early 
Masonic  usages  in  our  country  were  accommo- 
dated to  the  exigencies  which  the  early  brethren 
confronted,  and  beyond  bare  essentials  they  did 
not  concern  themselves  over  much  about  what 
we  choose  to  call  regularity.  This  they  could  do 
with  small  chance  of  offence  because  most  of 
what  now  constitutes  the  body  of  accepted  Ma- 
sonic dogma  had  not  been  settled  in  those  days. 

The  first  Masonic  establishment  in  this  coun- 
try based  upon  legal  authority  was  probably  St. 
John's  Lodge  of  Boston,  which  was  organized 
July  30th,  1733,  under  the  direction  of  Henry 
Price  whom,  it  is  claimed,  Grand  Master  Lord 
Viscount  Montague  had  made  a  Provincial 
Grand  Master  in  April  of  the  same  year. 


*  "When  men  undertake  to  establish  a  frame  of  govern- 
ment for  an  association  as  well  as  for  a  nation,  they  are 
inevitably  controlled  by  the  views  of  governments  which 
they  have  acquired  by  the  circumstances  in  which  they  are 
placed ;  and,  except  in  cases  of  revolution,  their  ideas  are 
generally  in  accord  with  the  civil  government  under  which 
they  live.  This  has  been  often  illustrated  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  governing  bodies  in  the  Masonic  Fraternity." — 
Josiah  H.  Drummond,  Monograph  on  Masonic  Jurispru- 
dence. 


22 


Freemasonry,  however,  had  preceded  any 
deputation  to  Henry  Price,  to  this  country,  if 
one  was  really  issued  to  him  at  the  time  men- 
tioned. Undoubtedly  many  of  the  earliest  of  the 
colonists  were  members  of  the  craft.  There  is 
credible  historical  evidence  that  there  were 
Masons  in  the  American  colonies  who  held  Ma- 
sonic intercourse,  more  or  less  informally  to  be 
sure,  even  before  the  establishment  of  the  Grand 
Lodge  of  England  in  171 7.  Commentators  and 
historians  are  accustomed,  nevertheless,  to 
ignore  the  sporadic  efforts  before  the  revival  of 
1717  and  to  view  the  American  Rite  as  beginning 
with  the  Deputation  to  Daniel  Coxe  of  New 
Jersey  and  Henry  Price  of  Boston.  The  former 
was  appointed  Provincial  Grand  Master  by  the 
Duke  of  Norfolk  on  June  5th,  1730;  the  latter 
was  probably  appointed  to  a  like  office  by  Lord 
Viscount  Montague  on  April  30th,  1733.  The 
jurisdiction  of  Daniel  Coxe  comprised  the  Prov- 
inces of  New  York,  New  Jersey  and  Pennsyl- 
vania, while  Henry  Price  was  deputized  for  New 
England. 

A  third  deputation  was  issued  about  the  same 
time  to  James  Graeme  over  a  jurisdiction  com- 
prised of  the  southern  colonies.  It  is  generally 
supposed  that  these  deputations  were  issued  in 
an  effort  to  make  the  division  of  Masonic  author- 
ity in  America  accord  with  the  scheme  of  King 
James  and  Queen  Anne  to  organize  the  colonies 


23 


into  three  vice-royalties,  with  territorial  juris- 
diction as  above  outlined.  The  partiality  of  the 
several  colonies  each  to  its  ov^n  local  institutions 
and  the  hostility  to  any  outside  interference  with 
their  own  local  self  government  as  they  had 
worked  it  out  for  themselves,  especially  by  other 
colonies,  resulted  early  in  a  tendency  towards  in- 
dividuality which  made  coalescence  into  any 
such  larger  units  as  mentioned  an  impossibiHty. 
The  same  tendency  towards  political  separate- 
ness  was  naturally  reflected  in  Masonic  matters. 
The  efforts  at  the  establishment  of  these  Ma- 
sonic vice-royalties  contemplated  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  Coxe,  Price  and  Graeme  utterly  failed. 
The  provincial  Grand  Masters  commanded  no 
great  influence  with  the  colonist  who  would  be 
amenable  to  no  high  Masonic  authority  except 
in  England.  The  offices  soon  lost  any  well 
defined  purpose  with  the  English  Grand  Masters, 
who  began  to  issue  deputations  promiscuously, 
and  without  regard  to  territorial  apportionment. 

The  following  is  the  complete  list  of  Provin- 
cial Grand  Masters  whose  appointments  can  be 
substantiated : 

Date.       Name.  Jurisdiction. 
1730    Daniel  Coxe  New  York,  New  Jersey, 


1736  John  Hamilton 

1737  Richard  Riggs 


1732   James  Graeme 
1736    Robert  Tomlinson 


Pennsylvania. 
South  Carolina. 
New  England. 
South  Carolina. 
New  York. 


1742   Thomas  Oxnard 


North  America. 


24 


Date.  Name. 

1747  Francis  Goelet 

1752  George  Harrison 

1754  Edgerton  Leigh 

1755  Jeremiah  Gridley 
1757  Grey  Ellicott 

♦1770  Henry  Price 

1770  Noble  Jones 

1771  Peyton  Randolph 
1791  Prince  Hall 


New  York. 
New  York. 
South  Carolina. 
North  America. 
Georgia. 
North  America. 
Georgia. 
Virginia. 
North  America. 


Jurisdiction. 


*  It  is  claimed  that  Henry  Price  was  deputized  in  1733 
but  there  is  no  record  of  this. 

The  separation  from  the  mother  country 
brought  home  to  the  craft  the  necessity  for  a 
*'more  perfect  union,"  Masonically  quite  as  forc- 
ibly as  politically.  Appropriating  the  lessons  of 
our  early  attempts  at  forming  a  nation  politically, 
the  colonial  Masons  began  to  set  their  house  in 
order.  The  state  of  mind  of  the  colonists 
towards  England  after  the  Revolution  made 
Masonic  separation  from  the  mother  country 
inevitable.  The  efforts  to  erect  the  several  states 
into  one  nation  politically  naturally  suggested  a 
basis  of  American  Masonic  organization.  It  v^as 
proposed  immediately  after  the  close  of  the  war 
to  form  a  National  Grand  Lodge  by  uniting  all 
the  Provincial  Grand  bodies,  with  George 
Washington,  the  most  distinguished  Mason  in 
America,  as  Grand  Master.  Many  of  the  same 
obstacles  which  beset  the  makers  of  the  Con- 
stitution stood  in  the  way  of  this  plan;  and  in 
addition  was  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  many 


25 


bodies  owing  fealty  to  as  many  as  four  different 
mother  lodges  in  the  old  world.  The  plan  fell 
through  and  a  chaotic  condition  of  things  pre- 
vailed for  some  years.  Just  as  the  "grinding 
necessity"  of  some  vital  compact  which  should 
save  the  liberated  colonies  from  anarchy  and 
political  chaos  alone  made  the  ratification  of  the 
Constitution  possible,  so  the  utter  confusion  re- 
sulting from  clashing  jurisdictions  and  bitter 
rivalries  finally  forced  the  various  Masonic  ele- 
ments to  compose  their  differences  and  adopt  a 
uniform  plan  of  Masonic  government.  The  union 
of  the  ''Ancients"  and  "Moderns"  which  followed 
soon  after  the  Revolution  removed  the  last 
obstacle  in  the  way  of  complete  harmonious 
action  by  the  American  bodies.  Again  profiting 
by  their  political  experience  in  forming  the  new 
American  nation,  the  Masons  evolved  the  unique 
but  obviously  practical  plan  of  making  Masonic 
jurisdiction  co-extensive  with  political  jurisdic- 
tion, and  thenceforward  began  the  development 
of  the  American  doctrine  that  the  jurisdiction 
of  a  Grand  Lodge  located  in  a  state  is  defined 
by  the  boundaries  of  that  state  and  immune  to 
invasion  by  all  other  Masonic  sovereigns.  This 
doctrine,  hit  upon  as  a  happy  expedient  in  the 
effort  to  consolidate  various  Masonic  bodies  di- 
rectly after  the  War  of  Independence,  was  re- 
ceived with  instant  favor  because  it  afforded  a 
sound  working  basis  for  intercourse  between  the 


26 


Grand  bodies;  and  also  a  satisfactory  basis  for 
the  Masonic  conquest  of  the  unsettled  portions 
of  the  new  country.  The  doctrine  of  exclusive 
territorial  jurisdiction  was  widely  observed  in 
the  development  of  the  American  Rite,  particu- 
larly after  the  complete  separation  from  Eng- 
land, and  is  today  uniformly  observed  in  this 
country. 

Just  when  the  Provincial  Grand  bodies  of 
America  became  absolutely  independent  of  the 
authority  of  the  Mother  Grand  Lodge  is  open 
to  controversy.  Many  such  bodies  declared  their 
independence  directly  after  the  end  of  the  Revo- 
lutionary War.  Still  others  took  their  inde- 
pendence as  a  matter  of  course  and  as  a  logical 
consequence  of  the  political  separation  of  the 
colonies  from  England.  Such  independence, 
however,  could  not  have  been  legally  acquired 
by  the  ex  parte  action  of  the  colonial  bodies 
themselves.  Concurrence  on  the  part  of  the 
parent  organization  was  absolutely  indispens- 
able. It  may  be  confidently  asserted  that  most 
of  these  quasi  Grand  Lodges,  or,  if  you  prefer, 
Provincial  Grand  Lodges,  did  not  actually  and 
legally  become  sovereign  bodies  until  they,  or  in 
many  instances  the  subordinate  lodges  on  which 
they  were  originally  predicated,  were  stricken 
from  the  English  roll  at  the  time  of  the  Masonic 
union  in  1813.  Prior  to  legal  separation  the 
American  Grand  bodies,  so-called,  were  really  in 

27 


the  nature  of  vice-royalties,  with  the  largest  pos- 
sible autonomy.  Nevertheless,  they  were  en- 
tirely amenable  to  the  laws  promulgated  and 
bound  by  the  decisions  made  by  the  Grand 
Lodges  of  England,  and  of  course  subject  to  the 
Common  Law  of  Masonry  as  declared  and  ex- 
pounded by  the  sovereign  bodies  in  the  mother 
country. 


28 


III. 


RIGHT  AND  TITLE 

The  test  of  the  legitimacy  of  a  Masonic  body 
is  this:  Is  the  authority  by  which  it  assumes  to 
practice  and  exempHfy  Masonic  principles  de- 
rived from  the  proper  source  and  did  the  man- 
ner of  the  derivation  of  such  authority  conform 
to  the  accepted  Masonic  usage  for  the  time 
being?  Tried  by  this  test,  the  Negro  Masonry 
of  the  United  States,  which  is  in  direct  line  of 
succession  from  Prince  Hall  Grand  Lodge,  can 
make  out  as  good  a  case  for  the  legitimacy  of 
its  existence  as  any  Masonry  in  the  western 
hemisphere.  In  fact  an  impartial  examination 
of  creditable  historical  data  will  show  that  the 
organization  of  the  parent  body  of  Negro 
Masonry  in  this  country  was,  in  many  respects, 
freer  from  technical  irregularities  than  those 
early  bodies  upon  which  the  Masonry  of  our 
white  brothers  is  founded.  For  it  is  certain  that 
if  our  white  brethren  were  compelled  to  rely 
upon  the  regularity  of  the  early  work  of  Daniel 
Coxe  and  Henry  Price,  through  whom  they 
largely  derived  their  Masonic  being,  they  would 
certainly  find  themselves  in  a  precarious  situa- 
tion. 


29 


From  no  authentic  Masonic  records  (e.  g.,  The 
Records  of  the  Grand  Lodge  of  England)  can 
it  be  proven  that  Daniel  Coxe  ever  acted  specific- 
ally upon  his  deputation  as  Provincial  Grand 
Master.  No  more  can  it  be  shown  from  any 
authentic  source  just  what  Henry  Price  did 
under  his  deputation.  Indeed  there  is  no  record 
in  the  annals  of  the  Mother  Grand  Lodge  that 
any  deputation  as  Provincial  Grand  Master  was 
ever  issued  to  Henry  Price  until  Lord  Petre  be- 
came Grand  Master,  which  was  quite  some  time 
after  the  "formation"  of  St.  John's  Grand  Lodge.* 
By  the  year  when  it  appears  from  the  English 
records  that  Henry  Price  was  really  deputized 
(1770),  St.  John's  Grand  Lodge,  so-called, 
had  warranted  over  thirty  subordinate  lodges 
throughout  the  several  colonies.  Neither  did 
Price  comply  with  the  terms  of  the  deputation 
ascribed  to  him,  which  strictly  enjoined  that  he 
should  make  annual  returns  to  the  Grand  Lodge 
of  England  of  lodges  constituted,  names  of  mem- 


*  "Nowhere  can  it  be  found  on  the  English  records  that 
a  deputation  was  granted  to  Henry  Price  until  Lord  Petre 
became  Grand  Master.  We  believe,  however,  that  such  a 
deputation  as  heretofore  recited  was  granted  by  Lord 
Montague ;  but  it  will  require  authentic  documents  to  satisfy 
an  impartial  reader  that  any  further  and  different  deputa- 
tion was  subsequently  granted,  increasing  his  territorial 
jurisdiction." — Meyer's  Monograph  on  "The  American 
Rite,"  "History  of  Freemasonry  and  Concordant  Orders" 
Stillson,  et  al,  p.  225. 


30 


bers,  etc.*  The  early  history  of  parent  Masonry 
among  our  white  brethren  is  involved  in  such 
uncertainties  that  even  so  eminent  an  historian 
as  Gould  avers  in  his  ''History  of  Freemasonry" 
that  the  ''foundation  of  authority  on  which  the 
early  Masonic  history  of  Massachusetts  reposes" 
is  "very  precarious."**  For  any  semblance  of  his- 


"He,  the  said  Mr.  Henry  Price,  taking  especial  care  that 
all  and  every  Member  of  any  Lodge  or  Lodges  so  to  be 
Constituted  have  been  or  shall  be  made  Regular  Masons, 
and  that  they  do  cause  all  and  every  the  Regulations  Con- 
tain'd  in  the  Printed  Book  of  Constitutions  (except  so  far 
as  they  have  been  altere<J  by  the  Grand  Lodge  at  their 
Quarterly  meetings),  to  be  kept  and  Observ'd,  and  also  all 
such  other  Rules  and  Instructions  as  shall  from  time  to 
time  be  Transmitted  to  him  by  us  or  by  Thomas  Batson, 
Esq.,  Our  Deputy  Grand  Master,  or  the  Grand  Master  or 
his  Deputy  for  the  time  being,  and  that  He  the  said  Mr. 
Henry  Price  or  his  Deputy  do  send  to  us  Our  Deputy 
Grand  Master  and  to  the  Grand  Master  of  England  or  his 
Deputy  for  the  time  being  Annually,  an  Acc't  in  Writing 
of  the  number  of  Lodges  so  Constituted  with  the  Names 
of  the  several  Members  of  each  Particular  Lodge,  together 
with  such  other  Matter  &  things  as  he  or  they  shall  think 
fit  to  Communicate  for  the  Prosperity  of  the  Craft." — From 
Deputation  to  Henry  Price  ascribed  to  Lord  Montague. 

'The  very  precarious  foundation  of  authority  on  which 
the  early  Masonic  history  of  Massachusetts  reposes.  The 
actual  records  of  the  Provincial  Grand  Lodge — by  which  I 
mean  a  contemporaneous  account  of  its  proceedings — date 
from  1751.  There  are  also  what  appear  to  be  transcripts  of 
brief  memoranda  describing  the  important  incidents  in  the 
history  of  that  body  between  1733-1750;  or  they  may  have 
been  made  up  from  the  recollection  of  brethren  who  had 
been  active  among  the  Craft  during  these  seventeen  years." 
— Gould's  "History  of  Freemasonry." 


31 


torical  proof  of  the  authority  of  the  acts  of  Daniel 
Coxe  and  Henry  Price,  and  indeed  of  the  acts 
themselves,  our  white  brethren  are  forced  to  rely 
for  the  most  part  upon  contemporaneous  hearsay 
from  profane  sources.  One  thing  alone  saves 
the  situation  for  them  historically,  and  that  is 
recognition  in  England.  For  there  can  be  no 
doubt  but  that  at  sundry  times  both  Coxe  and 
Price  were  officially  recognized  as  Provincial 
Grand  Masters.  But  official  recognition  could 
not  operate  as  a  "healing  act"  to  cure  all  manner 
of  Masonic  irregularities  already  practiced.  No 
more  could  a  deputation  to  Coxe  or  Price  recit- 
ing specific  powers  operate  as  a  Masonic  carte 
blanche.  Consequently,  the  case  of  our  white 
brethren  is  by  no  means  made  out  as  soon  as  they 
have  shown  the  reasonable  probabilities  to  be  on 
the  side  of  the  regular  appointment  of  Coxe  and 
Price  as  Provincial  Grand  Masters  and  of  their 
recognition  as  such.  But  in  addition  to  this  is  the 
burden  to  prove  that  all  those  things  Masonically 
needful  were  done  by  them  in  their  pioneer 
efforts  to  establish  the  Order  on  this  Continent. 

(a)    African  Lodge 

In  conspicuous  contrast  to  the  early  gropings 
of  Daniel  Coxe  and  Henry  Price  is  the  clean  cut 
and  orderly  work  of  Prince  Hall,  Provincial 
Grand  Master  and  the  father  of  Negro  Masonry 
in  America.     Concerning  the  constitution  of 


32 


African  Lodge  No.  459,  F.  and  A.  M.  (subse- 
quently No.  370)  and  the  establishment  of  all 
that  is  in  Masonic  sequence  thereto,  there  is  not 
the  slightest  difficulty  in  determining  what  was 
done  and  upon  what  authority.  There  it  all  is 
as  plain  as  daylight  itself,  and  chronicled  so 
faithfully  in  records  so  authentic  that  the  se- 
verest critic  can  find  no  historical  flaw.  In  1775, 
in  an  Army  Lodge  holding  a  warrant  under  the 
Grand  Lodge  of  England,  and  attached  to  one 
of  the  Regiments  at  Bunker  Hill,  Prince  Hall  and 
fourteen  other  men  of  African  descent  were  duly 
initiated,  passed  and  raised.  Nine  years  later 
almost  to  a  day  these  fifteen  Negro  Masons  ap- 
plied to  the  Grand  Lodge  of  England  to  be  set 
apart  as  a  regular  lodge.  Their  application  was 
granted  and  a  warrant  issued  to  them  September 
29th,  1784,  authorizing  them  to  be  constituted 
into  a  regular  lodge  under  the  designation  as 
African  Lodge  No.  459.*    This  warrant  was  de- 


*  "WARRANT  OF  AFRICAN  LODGE,  No.  459. 
WARRANT  OF  CONSTITUTION :  A.  G.  M. 
To  All  And  Every: 
"Our  right  worshipful  and  loving  brethren: — We,  Thomas 
Howard,  Earl  of  Effingham,  Lord  Howard,  etc.,  Acting 
Grand  Master,  under  the  authority  of  his  Royal  High- 
ness, Henry  Frederick,  Duke  of  Cumberland,  etc.. 
Grand  Master  of  the  Most  Ancient  and  Honorable 
Society  of  Free  and  Accepted  Masons,  send  greeting: 
"Know  ye  that  we,  at  the  humble  petition  of  our  Right 
Trusty  and  well  beloved  brethren,  Prince  Hall,  Boston 

33 


livered  to  them  three  years  later,  i.  e.  May  2, 
1787,  and  the  lodge  was  duly  organized  four  days 
after  that  date,  with  Prince  Hall  as  its  Master. 
In  the  same  year  African  Lodge  was  formerly 
entered  upon  the  EngHsh  Registry  along  with 
other  colonial  Masonic  bodies.  This  lodge  con- 
tinued as  a  subordinate  lodge,  exercising  all  the 
prerogatives  of  a  regular  Masonic  body,  until 
June  24th,  1791,  when  it  was  superceded  by 
African  Grand  Lodge  which  was  organized  in 
Boston,  Massachusetts,  on  that  date. 


Smith,  Thomas  Sanderson,  and  several  other  brethren  re- 
siding in  Boston,  New  England,  in  North  America,  do 
hereby  constitute  the  said  brethren  into  a  regular  Lodge  of 
Free  and  Accepted  Masons,  under  the  title  or  denomination 
of  the  African  Lodge,  to  be  opened  in  Boston,  aforesaid, 
and  do  further,  at  their  said  petition  and  of  the  great  trust 
and  confidence  reposed  in  every  of  the  said  above-named 
brethren,  hereby  appoint  the  said  Prince  Hall  to  be  Master ; 
Boston  Smith,  Senior  Warden ;  and  Thomas  Sanderson, 
Junior  Warden,  for  opening  the  said  Lodge,  and  for  such 
further  time  only  as  shall  be  thought  by  the  brethren  there- 
of, it  being  our  will  that  this,  our  appointment  of  the  above 
officers,  shall  in  no  wise  affect  any  future  election  of  officers 
of  said  Lodge,  but  that  such  election  shall  be  regulated, 
agreeable  to  such  By-Laws  of  the  said  Lodge  as  shall  be 
consistent  with  the  Grand  Laws  of  the  society,  contained 
in  the  Book  of  Constitutions;  and  we  hereby  will,  and 
require  of  you,  the  said  Prince  Hall,  to  take  special  care 
that  all  and  every,  the  said  brethren,  are  to  have  been  regu- 
larly made  Masons,  and  that  they  do  observe,  perform  and 
keep  all  the  rules  and  orders  contained  in  the  Book  of  Con- 
stitutions; and,  further,  that  you  do  from  time  to  time 
cause  to  be  entered,  in  a  book  kept  for  that  purpose,  an 
account  of  your  proceedings  in  the  Lodge,  together  with 


34 


(b)    Colonial  Grand  Lodges  in  General 

It  is  now  accepted  as  a  well  established  prin- 
ciple of  American  Masonic  Jurisprudence  that 
the  formation  of  a  Grand  Lodge  can  be  accom- 
plished only  by  the  uniting  of  three  regular 
lodges  in  free  Masonic  territory  for  the  purpose. 
This  principle  is  the  outgrowth  of  the  exigencies 
of  Masonic  government  during  the  last  one  hun- 
dred years.  The  mother  Grand  Lodge  was  not 
formed  in  this  way.  It  is  common  to  refer  to 
the  formation  of  the  original  Grand  Lodge  in 
1717  as  having  been  accomplished  by  the  four 
London  Lodges.  This  is  not  entirely  accurate. 
The  four  lodges  in  question  were  the  only  Lodges 


all  such  Rules,  Orders,  and  Regulations  as  shall  be  made 
for  the  good  government  of  the  same,  that  in  no  wise  you 
omit  once  in  every  year  to  send  to  us,  or  our  successors, 
Grand  Masters,  or  Rowland  Holt,  Esq.,  our  Deputy  Grand 
Master,  for  the  time  being,  an  account  of  your  said  pro- 
ceedings, and  copies  of  all  such  Rules,  Orders  and  Regula- 
tions as  shall  be  made  as  aforesaid,  together  with  the  list 
of  the  members  of  the  Lodge,  and  such  sum  of  money  as 
may  suit  the  circumstances  of  the  Lodge,  and  reasonably 
be  expected  toward  the  Grand  Charity. 

"Moreover,  we  will,  and  require  of  you,  the  said  Prince 
Hall,  as  soon  as  conveniently  may  be,  to  send  an  account 
in  writing  of  what  may  be  done  by  virtue  of  these  presents. 

"Given  at  London,  under  our  hand  and  seal 
of  Masonry,  this  29th  day  of  September, 
A.  L.  5784,  A.  D.  1784,  by  the  Grand 
Master's  command. 

R.  Holt,  Deputy  Grand  Master. 
Attest:  William  White,  Grand  Secretary/' 


35 


in  all  of  South  England.  These  lodges,  how- 
ever, were  by  no  means  the  units  of  representa- 
tion in  the  famous  meeting  at  the  *'Apple-tree 
Tavern."  This  meeting  was  of  the  comprised 
membership  in  these  four  lodges.  It  was  in  the 
nature  of  a  General  Assembly  of  the  Craft.* 
The  promiscuous  and  unwieldy  character  of 
these  general  assembHes,  together  with  the  need 
of  a  more  compact  and  efficient  governing  body, 
probably  led  to  the  provision  in  the  Charges  of 
1722  which  defined  the  Grand  Lodge  as  consist- 
ing of  "the  Master  and  Wardens  of  the  regular 
particular  lodges  upon  record,  with  the  Grand 


*  "When  the  Grand  Lodge  was  re-organized  in  1717,  all 
the  members  of  the  four  Lodges  then  in  existence  had  a 
right  to  be  present  at  all  the  communications  of  the  Grand 
Lodge;  but  when  new  Lodges  were  formed,  this  privilege 
was  restricted  to  their  Masters  and  Wardens,  though  it 
seems  that  at  the  Grand  Feast,  which  took  the  place  of  the 
Annual  General  Assembly,  Fellow  Crafts  and  Entered  Ap- 
prentices were  still  permitted  to  appear  and  express  their 
opinions. 

"The  members  of  the  four  old  Lodges,  having  first 
secured  their  inherent  rights  by  the  adoption  of  a  resolution 
in  the  Grand  Lodge  that  no  law  should  ever  be  passed 
which  would  infringe  their  immemorial  privileges,  thought 
it  no  longer  necessary  that  they  should  attend  the  com- 
munications of  the  Grand  Lodge;  and  they  too,  like  the 
other  Lodges,  trusted  implicitly  to  their  Masters  and  Ward- 
ens as  their  representatives  in  the  Grand  Lodge,  so  that  soon 
after  1717,  and  before  the  year  1721,  the  quarterly  com- 
munications of  the  Grand  Lodge  were  composed  only  of 
the  Masters  and  Wardens  of  the  subordinate  Lodges,  with 
the  Grand  Master  and  his  officers." — Masomc  Jurispru- 
dence, Albert  G.  Mackey,  p.  416. 


36 


Master  at  their  head."  So  that  while  the  Grand 
Lodge  was  at  first  purely  a  democratic  body,  it 
gradually  became  representative  in  character, 
undoubtedly  for  reasons  of  convenience  as  before 
stated.  Just  as  gradually  and  for  like  reasons, 
the  lodge  at  length  became  the  unit  of  repre- 
sentation in  the  Grand  body.  By  the  middle  of 
the  i8th  century  when  the  institution  began  to 
emigrate  to  new  lands,  this  idea  of  the  lodge  as 
the  unit  was  beginning  to  take  root.  When, 
therefore,  the  development  of  the  Order  in  new 
countries  demanded  a  definite  principle  to  con- 
trol the  organization  of  Grand  Masonic  bodies, 
the  subordinate  lodge  eventually  became  the 
organizing  unit  and  the  number  was  arbitrarily 
fixed  at  three.*    But  it  was  well  along  into  the 


*  It  is  literally  true  that  the  manner  of  fixing  the  number 
of  lodges  requisite  to  the  formation  of  a  Grand  Lodge  was 
arbitrary.  I  mean  that  the  principle  was  deduced  from  no 
Masonic  tradition,  nor  does  it  rest  upon  the  authority  of 
any  of  the  Ancient  Constitutions  or  Landmarks.  Dr. 
Mackey,  always  ingenious,  ascribes  its  origin  to  the  analo- 
gous requirements  of  the  civil  law  that  at  least  three  persons 
are  necessary  to  form  a  corporate  body.  This  may  or  may 
not  be  so.  Dermott,  whose  comprehensive  Masonic  scholar- 
ship cannot  be  questioned,  whatever  other  unfavorable 
opinion  may  be  entertained  of  this  fierce  controversialist, 
declared  that  the  constitutional  number  of  lodges  to  form 
a  Grand  Body  is  five.  We  take  no  special  stock  in  this 
assertion  but  cite  it  by  way  of  illustration.  Our  own 
notion  is  that  the  principle  is  attributable  to  some  chance 
practice  which  became  so  generally  and  customarily  ob-' 
served  as  to  become  a  part  of  the  common  law  of  masonry. 


37 


iQth  century  before  this  principle  had  acquired 
any  general  acceptation.  At  no  time  during  the 
i8th  century  was  there  any  accepted  form  of 
constituting  a  Grand  Lodge.  Especially  was  this 
true  of  early  American  Grand  bodies.  Scarcely 
any  two  of  these  were  formed  in  the  same  way. 
Some  were  organized  by  Provincial  Grand 
Masters,  acting  under  deputations  from  Eng- 
land; others  by  self  assumption  of  Grand  Lodge 
powers;  still  others  by  union  of  lodges  in  near 
localities.  And  in  all,  many  things  which  in 
these  times  are  deemed  essential  to  regularity 
were  absolutely  ignored.  In  fact  the  American 
colonial  Grand  Lodges,  judged  by  20th  century 
standards,  would  be  considered  as  the  veriest 
Masonic  anomalies.  For  instance,  a  Masonic 
doctrine  which  is  now  universally  acknowledged 
as  a  landmark  is  that  a  Grand  Lodge  is  the  peer 
of  every  other  regular  Grand  Lodge.  This 
means,  of  course,  that  each  Grand  Lodge  is  an 
independent  sovereignty,  a  separate  entity,  un- 
restricted except  by  the  ancient  landmarks  and, 
accountable  to  no  other  Masonic  authority.  And| 
yet  every  one  of  the  Provincial  "Grand  Lodges" 
so-called  were  organically  connected  with  the 
Grand  Lodge  of  England,  being  subject  and  ac- 
countable to  the  mother  Grand  body.  The  status 
of  these  colonial  bodies  may  be  accurately  de- 
scribed as  that  of  quasi  Grand  Lodges,  i.  e.  they 
were  possessed  of  the  prerogatives  of  a  Grand 

38 


Lodge  only  in  part.  It  was  some  years  after  the 
achievement  of  American  independence  before 
these  provincial  bodies  wrere  totally  emancipated 
by  the  English  Grand  Lodge;  for,  as  already 
pointed  out,  they  were  all  carried  upon  the  Eng- 
lish registry  until  1813  w^hen  the  ''Ancients"  and 
"Moderns"  agreed  upon  terms  of  peace  and  be- 
came united. 

The  foregoing  shoves  clearly  that  there  is  no 
analogy  betv^een  Masonic  conditions  of  the  i8th 
century  and  those  of  today  and  that  20th  century 
practices  are  no  test  of  i8th  century  regularity. 
The  propriety  of  Masonic  procedure  in  those 
times  can  only  be  determined  by  reference  to  the 
then  recognized  standards.  In  the  last  analysis, 
v^e  are  forced  to  rely  upon  the  viev^  taken  by 
competent  Masonic  authority  in  the  day  and 
time  of  the  acts  under  consideration.  If  a  given 
procedure,  w^hether  it  be  the  appointment  of  a 
''Provincial  Grand  Master,"  or  the  constitution 
of  a  "Provincial  Grand  Lodge,"  v\^as  recognized 
as  regular  in  the  highest  Masonic  circles  of  the 
times,  then  the  matter  is  a  closed  issue  so  far  as 
we  are  concerned.  It  is  as  the  lawyers  say,  res 
judicata. 

The  18th  century  was  the  formative  period  of 
Masonic  Jurisprudence.  Many  regulations  which 
are  now  accepted  as  matters  of  course  were  by 
no  means  settled  at  that  time.  As  has  been  al- 
ready stated,  there  was  at  no  time  during  the 

39 


i8th  century  any  definite  and  generally  recog- 
nized rule  for  the  formation  of  Grand  Lodges. 
About  the  only  requirement  which  seems  to  have 
been  considered  as  essential  was  that  those  en- 
gaged in  the  undertakings  must  themselves  have 
been  regularly  accredited  Masons.  After  that 
the  recognition  of  their  handiwork  was  based 
more  on  its  prosperity  than  on  its  modus. 

(c)    African  Grand  Lodge  in  Particular 

African  Grand  Lodge  was  formed  at  Boston, 
Massachusetts,  on  St.  John's  (The  Baptist)  Day, 
1791.  The  meeting  was  presided  over  by  Pro- 
vincial Grand  Master  Prince  Hall,  and  partici- 
pated in  by  many  of  the  members  of  the  craft 
who  had  been  made  in  African  Lodge  No.  459. 
Concerning  the  historical  fact  there  is,  or  can  be, 
no  dispute.  As  to  the  capacity  in  which  they 
who  formed  African  Grand  Lodge  met,  there  has 
been  some  considerable  controversy.  It  has  been 
variously  held,  first,  that  African  Grand  Lodge 
was  formed  by  African  Lodge  by  abrogating  its 
subordinate  charter  and  solemnly  assuming  the 
powers  and  prerogatives  of  a  Grand  Masonic 
body.  Second,  that  African  Grand  Lodge  was 
formed  by  a  general  assembly  of  the  craft  con- 
voked for  the  solemn  purpose.  Third,  that 
African  Grand  Lodge  was  formed  by  Prince  Hall 
acting  under  the  powers  expressed  and  implied 

40 


in  his  deputation  as  Provincial  Grand  Master, 
which  he  had  received  some  months  previously 
from  the  Grand  Master  in  England.  Grand 
Master  Upton  and  some  other  writers,  mistaking 
the  reorganization  and  change  of  name  in  1808, 
after  the  death  of  Prince  Hall,  refer  to  that  as 
the  date  of  the  constitution  of  the  parent  Grand 
body  of  Negro  Masonry.  The  mistake  is  of  no 
vital  consequence  since  the  action  of  1808  is 
legally  dependent  upon  the  preceding  incidents. 

The  first  serious  objection  urged  against  the 
legitimacy  of  Negro  Masonry  is  the  alleged 
irregularity  of  the  formation  of  African  Grand 
Lodge,  or  Prince  Hall  Grand  Lodge,  which  is  the 
source  of  all  Negro  Masonry  in  the  United 
States.  It  is  argued  that,  no  matter  which  of  the 
three  methods  was  employed,  the  objection  is 
valid;  because  each  fails  to  meet  the  essential 
requirements.  As  has  been  before  suggested,  if 
the  test  to  be  met  is  the  standard  of  the  Masonic 
practices  of  today,  then  not  alone  would  Prince 
Hall  Grand  Lodge  be  found  essentially  deficient, 
but  a  like  condition  would  confront  almost  every 
colonial  Grand  body  formed  on  this  Continent. 
Indeed  the  application  of  such  test  would  result 
in  the  impeachment  of  most  of  the  Grand  bodies 
constituted  in  the  i8th  century,  including  most 
of  the  historic  Grand  Lodges  of  Continental 
Europe.  Those  who  would  ignore  the  differing 
conditions  of  two  centuries,  and  seek  to  apply 


41 


the  rigid  tests  of  the  20th  century  to  the  imma- 
ture Masonic  practices  of  the  i8th  century,  must 
inevitably  find  themselves  involved  in  manifest 
absurdity.  Masonic  Jurisprudence  is  not  an  in- 
spired thing  that  has  been  handed  down  com- 
plete and  perfected.  Rather  it  has  been  an  elastic 
thing,  v^hich,  like  many  another  body  of  regula- 
tions governing  the  conduct  of  selected  groups 
of  men,  has  been  constantly  growing  and  more 
or  less  influenced  by  the  changing  mores  of  the 
people  as  a  whole. 

The  badge  of  recognition  alone  would  be  a 
complete  answer  to  the  critics  of  African  Grand 
Lodge  for  in  countless  ways  the  treatment  ac- 
corded African  Grand  Lodge  and  Prince  Hall 
Grand  Lodge  in  England  shows  conclusively 
that  they  were  considered  by  the  Mother  Grand 
Lodge  to  be  higher  than  subordinate  bodies  in 
dignity.  African  Grand  Lodge  does  not  have  to 
rely  upon  English  recognition,  however,  for  no 
matter  which  of  the  three  procedures  outlined 
above  was  followed,  there  are  numerous  and 
weighty  precedents  in  favor  of  its  regularity. 
Let  it  be  supposed,  for  instance,  that  African 
Grand  Lodge  was  formed  by  African  subordinate 
lodge  in  due  course  deciding,  without  external 
authority,  to  assume  the  powers  and  prerogatives 
of  a  Grand  body.  Such  a  procedure  is  not  unique 
in  Masonic  history. 

The  Grand  National  Mother  Lodge  of  "The 


42 


Three  Globes"  (Grosse  National  Mutterloge  "zu 
den  drei  Weltkugeln")  in  Germany  was  formed 
in  1744  by  the  assumption  of  this  title  by  a  sub- 
ordinate lodge  in  Berlin  called  the  "Three 
Globes."  This  subordinate  lodge  had  been  or- 
ganized in  1740  by  Baron  Bielifeld.  Frederick 
the  Great,  who  had  been  made  a  Mason  on  Au- 
gust 15th,  1738,  joined  this  lodge  soon  after  its 
formation,  and  upon  its  erection  into  a  Grand 
body,  that  illustrious  monarch  became  its  first 
Grand  Master,  which  office  he  held  until  1747. 

Old  Kilwinning  Lodge,  the  first  Masonic  body 
to  exist  in  Scotland,  early  in  its  history  assumed 
the  title  of  "Mother"  and  thenceforward  began 
to  warrant  "daughter"  lodges  subordinate  to  it- 
self, and  to  exercise  other  Grand  Masonic  pre- 
rogatives. The  name  of  Robert  Bruce,  after- 
wards King  Robert  I.  of  Scotland,  was  in  the  list 
of  its  Grand  Masters.  The  system  of  private 
lodges  assuming  the  prerogatives  and  powers  of 
a  Grand  Lodge  is  said  by  some  Masonic  his- 
torians to  have  originated  in  France.  If  this  is 
so,  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that,  in  spite  of  the 
checkered  history  of  Masonry  in  that  country, 
the  practice  in  question  never  acquired  for 
French  Masonry  the  contempt  of  the  rest  of  the 
Masonic  world.  There  surely  could  have  been 
no  stigma  attached  to  such  practice,  for  this 
thing  was  done  at  York,  the  very  cradle  of 
Masonry  and  the  birthplace  of  Prince  Edwin.  In 

43 


1725,  the  lodge  at  York,  which  had  previously 
been  known  as  St.  John's  Lodge,  enlarged  itself 
into  a  Grand  Lodge  and  elected  Charles  Bathurst 
as  Grand  Master,  at  the  same  time  styling  itself 
as  the  "Grand  Lodge  of  all  England,''  with  the 
evident  intent  of  asserting  its  rights  to  prece- 
dence over  the  Grand  Lodge  of  England  organ- 
ized some  years  previously,  by  the  four  lodges 
of  London.* 

In  like  manner  the  "Royal  York  zu  Freund- 
schaft"  became  a  Grand  body  in  1788,  having 
first  separated  itself  from  what  was  then  known 
as  the  Grand  Lodge  of  Germany.  The  action  of 
this  lodge  was  especially  significant  because  it 
was  already  connected  with  a  recognized  Grand 


*  Albert  G.  Mackey,  the  father  of  the  American  doctrine 
of  Exclusive  Territorial  Jurisdiction  of  Grand  Lodges, 
with  whom  "regularity,"  according  to  modern  precepts,  was 
a  veritable  obsession,  evolved  a  unique  theory  concerning 
this  bit  of  Masonic  history.  Confronted  with  the  fact  that 
a  Grand  Lodge  was  formed  at  York  itself,  by  a  private 
lodge  simply  assuming  Grand  Lodge  prerogatives  as  a 
"Mother  Lodge,"  the  eminent  Masonic  Scholar,  restrained 
by  his  due  reverence  for  things  done  in  the  "Cradle  of 
Masonry,"  attempted  to  explain  away  the  effect  of  this 
action  upon  his  own  most  cherished  theories  by  "distinguish- 
ing" between  a  "Mother  Lodge"  and  a  Grand  Lodge.  (See 
"A  History  of  Freemasonry,"  p.  1055 — Mackey  and  Single- 
ton). Nothing  could  better  show  how  essentially  litigious 
in  character  was  the  mind  of  this  great  writer,  and  how 
utterly  lacking  he  was  in  the  judicial  poise  which  stamps 
the  true  historian.  This  monumental  work —  "A  History 
of  Freemasonry" — is  defective  as  a  history  mainly  on  ac- 
count of  the  mental  bias  of  its  principal  co-laborator. 


44 


body.  It  is  noteworthy  that  although  it  styled 
itself  the  "Mother  Lodge,"  thereby  asserting  a 
claim  of  superiority  over  the  body  from  which  it 
separated,  there  was  no  serious  challenge  of  its 
authority  and  the  regularity  of  the  procedure 
seems  to  have  been  accepted  as  a  matter  of 
course. 

These  illustrious  examples  by  no  means  ex- 
haust the  list  of  the  Grand  Lodges  which  in  the 
i8th  century  were  formed  by  self-exaltation  to 
Grand  Lodge  dignities.  And,  excepting  the  case 
of  African  Grand  Lodge,  there  is  no  notable  in- 
stance of  a  protest  against  the  regularity  of  a 
Grand  Body,  based  on  the  fact  that  it  was  formed 
in  the  manner  described. 

But  again,  let  it  be  supposed  that  African 
Grand  Lodge  was  formed  by  a  General  Assem- 
bly of  the  Craft  for  the  purpose.  What  then? 
Is  its  regularity  thereby  impeached?  Assuredly 
not.  The  formation  of  the  first  Grand  Lodge 
was  accomplished  by  a  General  Assembly  of  the 
Craft.*   Those  participating  were  present  in  no 


*  "1717.  The  four  lodges  in  London  determined  to  elect 
a  new  Grand  Master,  and  form  a  Grand  Lodge.  They, 
therefore,  convened  a  general  assembly  of  the  Masons  in 
London  and  its  vicinity,  and  constituted  a  central  authority 
under  the  title  of  'The  Grand  Lodge  of  England,'  recogniz- 
ing only  the  three  symbolic  degrees.  George  Payne,  elected 
Grand  Master,  got  together  a  great  quantity  of  ancient 
manuscripts,  charts,  rituals,  and  documents  on  the  usages 


45 


representative  capacity.  There  was  no  thought 
of  the  four  London  lodges  as  the  constituent 
parts  of  the  organization  formed.  It  was  Hter- 
ally  a  Grand  Lodge  of  Masons.  As  has  been 
before  pointed  out,  the  representative  feature 
was  an  after  development.  It  is  always  to  be 
borne  in  mind  that  the  Grand  Lodge  was  simply 
a  device  hit  upon  as  an  administrative  conven- 
ience. It  was,  moreover,  a  creature  of  granted 
powers,  very  like  our  own  Federal  Government, 
and  its  powers  were  expressly  limited  and  de- 
fined in  the  Thirty-nine  Regulations.  All  powers 
not  granted  were  reserved  to  the  craft.  It  will 
be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  organization  of  a 
Grand  Lodge  by  a  General  Assembly  of  the 
Craft  has  on  its  side  the  weightiest  of  all  pre- 
cedents— the  precedent  of  the  first  Grand  Lodge 
ever  formed. 

America  at  the  time  of  the  organization  of 
African  Grand  Lodge  was  virgin  soil,  fettered 
by  no  established  Masonic  usage  save  the  old 
constitutions  and  landmarks  and  the  very  few 
administrative  usages  which  had  grown  up  with 
the  development  of  Masonic  government  by 
Grand  Lodges.    He  must  be  fastidious  indeed, 


of  the  Fraternity,  which,  added  to  those  in  possession  of 
St.  Paul's  Lodge,  were  to  form  a  code  of  laws  and  doctrines, 
certain  of  which  were  to  be  published." — Macoy's  History 
and  Encyclopedia  of  Freemasonry,  p.  27. 


46 


therefore,  who  would  find  fault  with  the  Negro 
Masonic  pioneers  because  they  followed  the  one 
best  Masonic  precedent. 

The  deputations  issued  to  Provincial  Grand 
Masters  in  colonial  times  carried  either  by  their 
express  terms,  or  by  necessary  implication,  the 
power  to  organize  Provincial  Grand  Lodges.  No 
better  example  could  be  cited  than  that  of  Henry 
Price  who  formed  St.  John's  Grand  Lodge  (Mas- 
sachusetts) under  such  circumstances.  If  Afri- 
can Grand  Lodge  was  formed  therefore  by 
Prince  Hall  by  virtue  of  his  authority  as  Pro- 
vincial Grand  Master,  derived  from  his  deputa- 
tion as  such,  surely  no  extended  defence  of  its 
regularity  will  be  needed;  for  such  Masonic  prac- 
tice was  too  common  in  those  days  to  admit  of 
serious  question.*  That  Prince  Hall  was  a  Pro- 
vincial Grand  Master  can  not  be  reasonably 
doubted.**    While  the  English  records  do  not 


♦"PROVINCIAL  GRAND  MASTER.  The  appoint- 
ment of  this  officer,  for  counties  and  for  large  populous 
districts,  is  a  prerogative  of  the  Grand  Master,  by  whom, 
or,  in  his  absence,  by  his  deputy,  a  patent  may  be  granted, 
during  pleasure,  to  such  brother  of  eminence  and  ability  in 
the  Craft  as  may  be  thought  worthy  of  the  appointment. 
By  this  patent  he  is  invested  with  a  rank  and  power,  in  his 
particular  district,  similar  to  those  possessed  by  the  Grand 
Master  himself. — Constitutions." — Quoted  in  Oliver's  Dic- 
tionary of  Symbolical  Masonry,  />.  630. 

**  Our  opponents  have  sought  to  make  capital  out  of  the 
fact  that  the  office  of  Provincial  Grand  Master  continued 


47 


conclusively  show  his  deputation,  the  record  of 
the  official  correspondence  with  him,  both  by 
content  and  style  of  address,  proves  conclusively 
that  Prince  Hall  was  recognized  and  honored  as 
a  Provincial  Grand  Master  by  the  mother  Grand 
Lodge.* 


only  during  the  pleasure  of  the  Grand  Master  who  created 
it.  From  the  temporary  character  and  uncertainty  of  the 
tenure  of  a  Provincial  Grand  Mastership,  it  argued  that  the 
"Grand  Bodies"  which  they  created  died  with  the  office  of 
their  creators.  Hence  they  claim,  feebly  enough,  that  if 
African  Grand  Lodge  was  created  by  Prince  Hall  under  a 
deputation  as  Provincial  Grand  Master  it  was  not  a  per- 
manent body,  and  so  had  no  further  right  to  exist  after  the 
death  of  Prince  Hall.  This  is  predicated  on  the  theory  that 
African  Grand  Lodge  was  a  "Provincial"  body,  in  the 
ordinary  sense,  which  is  not  the  fact.  It  is  true  that  one 
theory  is  that  the  assembly  which  organized  the  parent 
Negro  body  was  convoked  by  Prince  Hall  as  Provincial 
Grand  Master.  Nevertheless,  there  is  sufficient  evidence  to 
satisfy  any  fair  and  open  mind,  that  African  Grand  Lodge 
did  not  rest  alone  upon  the  color  of  authority  of  Prince 
Hall's  deputation.  A  body  permanent  in  character  and 
possessed  of  Grand  Lodge  authority  was  organized  with 
both  the  sanction  and  recognition  of  the  Mother  Grand 
Lodge  of  England. 

How  will  they  who  challenge  the  regularity  of  African 
Grand  Lodge  on  the  grounds  stated  ever  be  able  to  con- 
sistently defend  the  legitimacy  of  "St. John's  Grand  Lodge," 
the  handiwork  of  Henry  Price,  the  Patron  and  Patriarch 
of  White  Masonry  in  America  ? 

*  The  following  correspondence,  invariably  referred  to  by 
writers  on  this  subject,  is  a  brief  in  itself.  Certain 
things  about  these  letters  are  at  once  plain  even  to 
the  casual  Masonic  student.  First  the  style  of  address 
employed  by  the  Grand  Secretary  shows  that  the  addressee. 
Prince  Hall,  was  a  Masonic  dignitary  higher  than  a  Past 


48 


Master;  for  even  in  those  early  days  of  loose  Masonic 
usage,  the  title  "Right  Worshipful"  was  scarcely  ever  given 
to  any  but  Grand  Officers.  Again,  the  mission  outlined  was 
one  that  would  not  have  been  entrusted  to  an  ordinary 
Master  Mason,  or  even  a  Past  Master,  and  the  fact  that 
Prince  Hall  was  a  colored  man  makes  such  a  mission  to 
any  one  less  than  a  high  Masonic  officer  an  additional  im- 
probability. 

Incidentally,  the  Lodge  referred  to  in  New  Haven,  Con- 
necticut, is  said  to  be  the  present  Hiram  Lodge  No.  1  of 
the  White  Grand  Lodge  of  Connecticut. 
Letter  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Grand  Lodge  of  England 

to  Prince  Hall: 

''London,  August  20th,  1792. 

''Right  Worshipful  Brother:  I  have  the  pleasure  of  send- 
ing inclosed  the  printed  proceedings  of  the  Grand  Lodge 
by  which  you  will  perceive  the  flourishing  state  of  our 
society ;  and  in  the  account  of  the  24th  of  November,  1787, 
you  will  find  accredited  your  donation  to  the  charity  fund, 
ten  dollars  sent  by  Captain  Scott;  and  that  of  the  18th  of 
April  last,  your  donation  of  one  guinea.  I  am  much  obliged 
to  you  for  the  sermon  you  sent  me,  which  I  think  very  well 
written,  and  very  appropriate  for  the  occasion. 

"When  next  you  write  to  me,  I  should  be  obliged  to  you  if 
you  would  let  me  know  if  the  lodges  in  the  inclosed  list, 
which  were  constituted  by  the  Grand  Lodge  of  England, 
are  yet  in  being,  as  we  have  never  heard  from  them  since 
the  commencement  of  the  late  war  in  America,  or  indeed, 
long  before;  and  in  case  they  have  ceased  to  meet,  which  I 
rather  apprehend,  they  ought  to  be  erased  from  our  list  of 
lodges. 

"I  am  much  obliged  to  you  for  the  account  you  give  re- 
specting your  own  Lodge,  to  which  I  sincerely  wish  success, 
as  I  should  be  happy  to  have  it  in  my  power  to  contribute 
thereto. 

"Inclosed  I  send  you  one  of  the  calendars  for  the  present 
year,  of  which  I  beg  your  acceptance. 

I  remain,  with  fraternal  regard. 
Right  Worshipful  Brother, 
Your  obedient  servant  and  brother, 

(Signed.)    William  White." 


49 


"To  the  Grand  Secretary,  London,  Freemasons  St. 

"Worshipful  Brother : — I  received  yours  of  the  20th  of 
August  last,  together  with  the  printed  accounts  of  the  state 
of  the  Grand  Lodge ;  and  am  happy  to  see  the  flourishing 
state  of  the  Society,  and  I  am  very  sorry  to  see  so  many 
Lodges  whose  behaviour  hath  been  such  as  to  put  the  Grand 
Lodge  to  so  disagreeable  a  task  as  to  erase  them  from  so 
honorable  a  society.  I  have  made  inquiry  about  the  Lodges 
you  wrote  to  me  about,  the  Lodge  No.  42,  which  used  to 
meet  at  the  Royal  Exchange,  and  kept  at  the  Assembly 
House,  at  the  head  of  Orange  Tree  Lane,  has  kept  a  regular 
Lodge,  and  was  joined  last  year  by  one  or  two  more  Lodges. 
Their  present  Grand  Master  is  John  Cutler,  chosen  last 
year,  and  walked  to  Trinity  Church,  where  a  sermon  was 
delivered  by  Rev.  Walter,  D.D.,  June  25th.  The  Lodge 
No.  88  hath  joined  the  above  Lodge  ever  since  the  death 
of  their  Grand  Master,  Henry  Price,  Esq.,  for  he  is  long 
since  dead — a  worthy  Mason.  As  for  the  Marblehead 
Lodge  No.  91,  I  cannot  give  any  information  of  it,  whether 
it  keeps  or  not ;  but  I  believe,  they  don't,  for  if  they  did, 
I  should  have  heard  from  her.  As  for  the  Lodge  No.  93, 
in  New  Haven,  Connecticut,  I  hear  they  keep  a  regular 
Lodge,  and  I  have  reason  to  believe  it.  The  Lodge  No.  142 
do  keep  the  same,  as  some  of  them  hath  visited  our  Lodge, 
and  heard  it  from  their  own  mouths. 

*T  am  happy  that  you  approve  of  the  sermon.  I  have  sent 
you  a  charge  I  delivered  at  Charlestown,  on  the  25th  of 
June  last.  I  have  sent  one  to  your  Royal  Grand  Master, 
his  Royal  Highness,  the  Prince  of  Wales,  and  another  to 
his  Deputy,  and  three  for  the  Grand  Lodge,  which  I  hope 
will  meet  your  approval. 

(Signed.)    Prince  Hall."' 


50 


IV. 


THE  TERRITORIAL  ARGUMENT 

In  what  is  generally  accepted  among  white 
Masons  as  the  most  authoritative  and  compre- 
hensive history  of  Freemasonry  in  America, 
there  is  appended  to  a  page  giving  a  list  of  Mas- 
sachusetts lodges  to  be  found  on  the  early  Eng- 
lish Registry,  the  following  gratuitous  foot- 
note: 

"African  Lodge  had  no  inherent  rights,  had  no  authority 
to  grant  dispensations  or  warrants  to  others,  and  its  erasure 
wiped  it  and  all  its  so-called  offspring  out  of  existence ;  and 
from  the  time  of  the  union  of  the  two  Grand  Lodges  of 
Massachusetts,  if  it  was  then  in  existence,  it  became  clan- 
destine." 

This  petty  squib,  apart  from  the  historical 
ignorance  implied  in  its  assumptions,  is  remark- 
able as  a  summary  of  the  time  worn  arguments 
against  Negro  Masonry.  Otherwise  stated,  this 
is  the  argument:  If  no  flaws  can  be  picked  in 
the  early  practices  of  African  Lodge,  and  if  its. 
erasure  from  the  English  Registry  (at  the  same 
time  with  all  other  subordinate  lodges  in  the 
United  States)  did  not  afford  grounds  for  objec- 
tion, then  surely  the  fact  that  it  was  not  a  party 
to  the  compact  uniting  "the  two  Grand  Lodges 
to  form  the  Grand  Lodge  of  Massachusetts*' 

51 


rendered  it  thenceforward  a  clandestine  body; 
because,  it  is  argued,  the  formation  of  the  Mas- 
sachusetts Grand  Lodge,  ipso  facto,  conferred 
upon  that  body  exclusive  Masonic  jurisdiction 
throughout  the  whole  state  of  Massachusetts. 

Here  is  the  ancient  ruse  of  making  a  straw 
man  to  knock  down.  Of  course  African  Lodge, 
by  virtue  of  its  incontestable  warrant  from  Eng- 
land, had  all  the  rights  which  under  the  ancient 
landmarks  and  old  constitutions  inhere  in  any 
regular  lodge  of  Masons.  The  authority  to  grant 
warrants  and  dispensations,  while  it  was  a  sub- 
ordinate lodge,  has  never  been  claimed  for  Afri- 
can Lodge,  although  there  were  strong  American 
precedents  even  for  that;  nor  can  it  be  shown 
that  any  such  were  ever  granted  until  it  had  been 
duly  erected  into  a  Grand  body.  Concerning 
the  erasure  of  African  Lodge  from  the  English 
Registry,  more  will  be  said  hereafter  in  these 
pages.  However,  it  may  be  well  to  note  here  one 
very  interesting  fact  in  that  connection.  The 
same  work  above  referred  to  is  authority  for  the 
statement  that  African  Lodge  was  not  erased 
from  the  English  Registry  until  1813;  and  that 
the  Massachusetts  Grand  Lodge,  as  a  result  of 
the  union,  was  formed  March  5th,  1792.  Con- 
sequently if  our  facetious  historian  is  correct  in 
his  premises,  the  Mother  Grand  Lodge  of  Eng- 
land was  guilty  of  the  highly  reprehensible  of- 
fence of  keeping  upon  its  roll  and  affiliating  with 

52 


a  clandestine  lodge  of  Negro  Masons  for  twenty- 
one  years.  The  insecurity  of  his  position  must 
have  begun  to  dawn  upon  our  writer,  for  he  did 
not  dare  to  rest  his  case  without  tacking  on  the 
inevitable  Territorial  argument.  This  is  the 
common  experience  of  all  detractors  of  Negro 
Masonry.  The  more  they  go  into  the  early  his- 
tory of  Masonry  in  America,  critically,  the  more 
they  come  to  realize  that  the  only  alleged  objec- 
tion to  the  legitimacy  of  Prince  Hall  Masons 
which  they  can  state  with  a  straight  face  is  the 
one  based  on  the  argument  of  exclusive  terri- 
torial jurisdiction.  And  even  that  has  barely  the 
semblance  of  plausibility. 

What  is  this  doctrine  of  exclusive  territorial 
jurisdiction?  There  is  perhaps  no  better  state- 
ment of  it  than  is  contained  in  the  famous 
"Twelve  Tables"  issued  by  the  Grand  Master  of 
Quebec  (1883)  in  relation  to  the  now  celebrated 
controversy  with  the  Grand  Lodge  of  England.* 


*  Two  years  after  the  proclamation  of  the  "British  North 
America  Act,  1867,"  by  which  Canada  was  divided  into  the 
two  provinces  of  Ontario  and  Quebec,  twenty-one  lodges  of 
varying  allegiance,  located  in  the  latter  province,  met  in  a 
representative  body  and  formed  the  "Grand  Lodge  of  Que- 
bec." At  once  ensued  a  bitter  controversy  between  the  new 
Grand  Lodge  and  the  "Grand  Lodge  of  Canada,"  who 
challenged  the  right  of  the  craft  to  form  the  new  body. 
This  controversy  was  soon  overshadowed,  however,  by  the 
more  serious  dispute  which  soon  arose  between  the  "Grand 
Lodge  of  Quebec"  and  the  Grand  Lodge  of  England  because 


53 


The  following  three  of  the  twelve  give  the  sub- 
stance of  the  doctrine: 

Table  V.  From  its  formation,  every  regularly  consti- 
tuted Grand  Lodge,  as  to  its  privileges,  prerogatives,  and 
duties,  and  as  to  whatever  else  of  right  appertains  to  a 
Grand  Lodge  of  Free  Masons,  is  the  peer  of  every  other 
regular  Grand  Lodge,  and  no  other  Grand  body  can  lawfully 


of  the  efforts  of  the  former  to  impose  its  authority  upon 
three  Lodges  in  the  City  of  Montreal  which  held  warrants 
directly  from  England.  The  claims  of  the  Grand  Lodge  of 
Quebec  were  set  forth  as  follows: 

"The  principle  of  coincidence  or  coterminousness,  of 
political  and  Masonic  boundaries,  is  an  acknowledged  law 
of  the  constitutions  of  the  Grand  Lodges  of  England,  Ire- 
land and  Scotland. 

"The  jurisdiction  of  each  of  these  Grand  Lodges  is  ex- 
clusive within  its  geographical  limits. 

"Each  of  these  Grand  Lodges  claims  to  be,  and  is,  abso- 
lutely sovereign,  and  may  and  does  enforce  its  territorial, 
exclusive,  sovereign  authority,  by  the  most  extreme  Masonic 
penalties,  against  all  lodges  not  of  its  registry,  existing 
within  its  boundaries,  in  contravention  thereto  or  in  viola- 
tion thereof,  even  if  said  lodge  (or  lodges)  were  of  'institu- 
tion' anterior  to  that  of  said  Grand  Lodge. 

"The  doctrine  of  exclusive  Grand  Lodge  jurisdiction 
cannot,  therefore,  with  propriety,  be  called  an  American 
doctrine  only;  but  it  is  a  doctrine  of  the  Ancient  Constitu- 
tions of  Freemasonry,  as  expressed  in  the  constitutions  of 
the  premier  of  modem  Grand  Lodges. 

"Moreover,  the  Province  of  Quebec  is  a  federal  Province 
of  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  and  has  a  political  autonomy 
with  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive  powers,  which  are 
not  possessed  by  England,  Scotland,  or  Ireland,  as  parts  of 
the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland;  and 
hence  the  Grand  Lodge  of  Quebec  is  as  much  (and,  a 
fortiori,  more),  entitled  to  have  and  to  exercise  exclusive 
Masonic  authority  within  her  territorial  limits,  as  is  either 


54 


exercise  Masonic  Craft  authority  within  its  territorial  juris- 
diction. 

Table  VII.  Any  Grand  Lodge  may  charter  private 
lodges  in  any  territory  unoccupied  by  a  local  sovereign 
Grand  Lodge;  but  the  exercise  of  this  right  is  v^^ith  pro- 
priety restricted  to  unoccupied  territories  belonging  to  the 
country  within  whose  domain  the  chartering  Grand  Lodge 


of  the  Grand  Lodges  of  the  United  Kingdom  within  its 
geographical  boundaries." 

These  claims  were  repudiated  in  toto  by  the  Grand  Lodge 
of  England  who  refused,  unequivocally,  to  subscribe  to  the 
same  as  sound  Masonic  law.  In  furtherance  of  his  argu- 
ments on  the  subject,  the  Grand  Master  of  Quebec,  at  the 
annual  communication  of  his  Grand  Lodge  in  1883,  pro- 
mulgated his  famous  "Twelve  Tables"  which  in  turn,  were 
also  repudiated  in  so  far  as  they  involved  the  doctrine  of 
exclusive  territorial  jurisdiction.  To  show  how  sharply  the 
English  authorities  took  issue  on  this  doctrine  we  subjoin 
in  full  these  so-called  "Tables,"  to  which  they  refused 
assent : 

"The  Twelve  Tables. — 1.  At  least  three  duly  represented 
private  lodges  must  unite  in  the  establishment  of  a  Grand 
Lodge,  and  the  number  of  lodges  thus  co-operating  should 
constitute  a  majority  of  all  the  regular  private  lodges  ex- 
isting within  the  territory  for  which  the  sovereign  Grand 
body  is  formed.  The  union  and  co-operation  of  all  the 
lodges  so  situated  is  supremely  desirable,  when  practicable. 

II.  It  is  the  duty  of  every  private  lodge  situated  within 
the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  a  regularly  formed  Grand 
Lodge,  but  which,  through  any  cause,  was  not  represented 
at  its  organization,  to  become,  at  an  early  day  thereafter, 
of  allegiance  to  the  new  Grand  body,  and  be  enrolled  on  its 
Registry ;  or,  upon  its  refusal  it  may  be  deemed  and  declared 
to  be  an  irregular  lodge  in  not  submitting  to  the  lawfully 
constituted  Masonic  sovereignty  of  the  country. 

III.  At  the  formation  of  a  Grand  Lodge,  it  is  not  re- 
quired to  issue  new  warrants  to  the  lodges  which  united  in 
its  establishment,  or  to  those  which  subsequently  become 


55 


is  situated,  or  to  exterior  countries  within  whose  limits  a 
Grand  Lodge  does  not  exist. 

Table  VIII.  A  Grand  Lodge  can  not  rightfully  con- 
stitute a  new  lodge,  or  continue  to  exercise  jurisdiction 
over  any  lodge  formerly  chartered  by  it,  after  the  regular 
formation  of  a  Grand  Lodge  within  the  territory  in  which 
said  private  lodge  is  situated. 


of  its  allegiance ;  but  an  endorsement  of  the  transference 
of  allegiance  may  be  made  on  the  margin  of  the  charter  of 
the  adhering  lodge  or  lodges. 

IV.  At  the  formation  of  a  Grand  Lodge,  in  the  absence 
of  a  Grand  Master,  or  Past  Grand  Master  of  another  Grand 
Lodge,  the  oldest  Past  Master  of  a  private  lodge  present 
may  install  the  Grand  Master-elect. 

V.  From  its  formation,  every  regularly  constituted 
Grand  Lodge,  as  to  its  privileges,  prerogatives,  and  duties, 
and  as  to  whatever  else  of  right  appertains  to  a  Grand 
Lodge  of  Freemasons,  is  the  peer  of  every  other  regular 
Grand  Lodge,  and  no  other  Grand  body  can  lawfully  exer- 
cise Masonic  Craft  authority  within  its  territorial  juris- 
diction. 

VL  Upon  the  consensus  of  a  majority  of  sister  Grand 
Lodges  as  to  the  right  of  existence,  and  the  regularity  of 
the  formation  of  a  new  Grand  Lodge,  the  remaining  regular 
Grand  Lodges  should  deem  themselves  to  be  bound  by  the 
award,  duly  pronounced,  of  their  sister  Masonic  sovereign- 
ties, and  seek  the  establishment  of  interjurisdictional  rela- 
tions with  the  new  territorially  supreme  Grand  body. 

Vn.  Any  Grand  Lodge  may  charter  private  lodges  in 
any  territory  unoccupied  by  a  local  sovereign  Grand  Lodge ; 
but  the  exercise  of  this  right  is  with  propriety  restricted 
to  unoccupied  territories  belonging  to  the  country  within 
whose  domain  the  chartering  Grand  Lodge  is  situated,  or 
to  exterior  countries  within  whose  limits  a  Grand  Lodge 
does  not  exist. 

VIIL  A  Grand  Lodge  cannot  rightfully  constitute  a  new 
lodge,  or  continue  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  any  lodge 
formerly  chartered  by  it,  after  the  regular  formation  of  a 
Grand  Lodge  within  the  territory  in  which  said  private 
lodge  is  situated. 


56 


The  idea  of  Masonic  jurisdiction  being  co- 
terminous with  political  boundaries  grew  up 
with  the  peculiar  development  of  colonial  Am- 
erica. It  is  an  American  doctrine  pure  and  sim- 
ple and  was  so  characterized  by  the  English 


IX.  A  Grand  Lodge  cannot  rightfully  extend  to,  or 
receive  from,  another  Grand  Lodge  qualified  or  conditional 
recognition,  or  lawfully  establish  interjurisdictional  rela- 
tions based  thereon. 

X.  A  Grand  Lodge  violating  any  of  the  essential  Land- 
marks of  the  Order  should  be  deemed  and  declared  to  be 
an  irregular  body  as  long  as  such  violation  of  the  Constitu- 
tions of  the  Fraternity  is  persisted  in. 

XL  Any  order  or  organization  allied  to  Ancient  Craft 
Masonry,  by  requiring  candidates  for  admission  thereto  to 
be  Freemasons,  should  be  deemed  and  declared  to  have 
forfeited  said  alliance,  should  they  wilfully  violate  or  en- 
deavor to  annul,  the  Landmarks,  Laws,  and  Constitutions 
of  Ancient  Freemasonry. 

XII.  The  several  federal  Provinces  constituting  the 
Dominion  of  Canada,  and  the  Colonies  throughout  the 
British  Empire,  having  local  constitutional  governments, 
are  severally  as  much  entitled  to  form  and  to  have  Grand 
Lodges,  possessing  and  exercising  exclusive  sovereign  juris- 
diction within  their  respective  geographical  and  legislative 
boundaries,  as  are  England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland,  as  com- 
ponent parts  of  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland;  or  as  are  the  several  federal  States  and  organized 
Territories  of  the  United  States  of  America ;  or  as  are  any 
separate  and  distinct  kingdoms,  or  the  like." 

With  an  air  of  finality  the  Quebec  Grand  Master  cited 
as  ''precedents"  a  long  list  of  Grand  Lodges  which  had 
accepted  the  territorial  principle.  It  is  interesting  that  every 
Grand  Lodge  in  the  list  is  an  American  body;  thus  affirm- 
ing the  contention  of  the  English  leaders  that  the  territorial 
doctrine  is  an  "American  doctrine,"  purely  local  in  its  origin 
and  application,  and  dependent  upon  voluntary  assent  for 
whatever  authority  it  possesses. 


57 


authorities  in  the  Quebec  controversy  already 
referred  to.  In  the  final  compromise  effected 
between  the  disputants  in  that  case,  the  EngHsh 
were  at  pains  to  assert  that  the  concessions 
granted  by  them  in  the  interest  of  peace  and 
harmony  by  no  means  implied  their  acceptance 
of  the  doctrine  in  question.  All  of  this  occurred, 
be  it  understood,  as  late  as  1883. 

In  many  of  the  countries  and  principalities  of 
Europe,  there  were,  for  the  larger  part  of  the  last 
century,  oftentimes  several  Grand  Lodges  exist- 
ing at  the  same  time  and  exercising  co-extensive 
jurisdiction.*    Indeed  in  some  parts  of  Europe 


*  The  examples  of  the  three  leading  Masonic  countries  of 
Europe  in  the  Eighteenth  Century  will  bear  out  this  state- 
ment: 

In  England.  For  years  the  "Grand  Lodge  of  England" 
and  the  "Grand  Lodge  of  All  England"  existed  side  by  side. 
There  were  controversies  between  these  two  bodies;  but 
conflict  of  territorial  jurisdiction  was  never  the  subject  of 
any  of  them.  Indeed  the  long  and  bitter  fight  between  the 
Grand  Lodge  of  England  ("Moderns")  and  Athol  Grand 
Lodge  ("Ancients")  had  to  do  with  other  questions  of 
regularity;  and  territorial  encroachment  is  a  point  never 
seriously  raised  by  the  Grand  Lodge  of  England  against 
Dermott  and  his  followers. 

In  Germany.  In  this  country  where  the  fraternity  has 
been  patronized  by  the  elite  of  the  land  even  to  a  greater 
extent  than  in  England,  it  is  notoriously  true  that  at  various 
times  throughout  the  history  of  the  Order  there  have  been 
numerous  Grand  Masonic  Bodies  with  coterminous  juris- 
diction. Besides  the  "Three  Globes"  above  cited,  there  were 
at  one  time  during  the  latter  part  of  the  Eighteenth  Century 


58 


that  condition  obtains  even  to  this  day.  It  is 
noteworthy,  moreover  that  the  most  notable 
consolidations  have  been  effected  for  reasons  of 
governmental  and  administrative  convenience, 
with  never  any  thought  of  clashing  jurisdiction. 
The  impression  is  abroad  in  this  country  that  in 
a  given  territory  it  is  indispensable  that  there  be 
one,  and  only  one,  Masonic  sovereign.  But  this 
is  not  so.  To  have  one  sovereign  in  a  given 
political  division  undoubtedly  simplifies  Masonic 
administration,  and  hence  leaves  less  chance  for 
confusion  and  is  therefore  a  desirable  consum- 
mation; but  reasons  more  potent  than  that  are 
necessary  to  make  a  ruling  Masonic  precedent. 
Masonry  is  universal,  is  adaptable  to  all  peoples 
of  all  lands,  for  all  times.  Because,  under  our 
peculiar  republican  "states  rights"  states,  it  is 
convenient  to  have  one  Grand  Lodge  for  each 
state  of  the  Union,  it  does  not  follow  that  our 
German  brethren,  for  instance,  must  similarly 
organize.  That  is  why  the  Grand  Lodge  of  Ham- 
burg considered  it  no  invasion  of  pre-empted  ter- 
ritory when  it  began  in  185 1  to  warrant  lodges 


co-existing  in  Germany:  "The  National  Grand  Lodge  of 
Germany,"  "The  Grand  Lodge  York  of  Friendship/'  "The 
Grand  Lodge  of  Hamburg"  and  "The  Grand  Lodge  of  The 
Sun." 

In  Scotland.  In  this  country  "Mother  Kilwinning"  and 
"The  Grand  Lodge  of  Scotland"  worked  side  by  side  for 
many  years. 


59 


of  its  own  in  the  state  of  New  York,  in  spite  of 
the  vehement  protests  of  the  Grand  Lodge  of 
that  state. 

There  is  no  disposition  here  to  question  the 
general  acceptation  of  the  territorial  doctrine 
and  the  recognition  of  its  binding  force  by  prac- 
tically all  Grand  Lodges  of  the  United  States. 
That  must  be  conceded.  But  how  can  that  fact 
be  invoked  to  impeach  the  regularity  of  Masonic 
acts  which  are  older  than  the  doctrine  itself?  It 
is  much  like  invoking  the  terms  of  some  new- 
fangled eugenic  marriage  statute  to  impeach  the 
legitimacy  of  the  offspring  of  parents  regularly 
joined  in  wedlock  under  the  old  fashioned  matri- 
monial dispensation  of  a  half  century  ago.  Not 
alone  that.  Suppose  a  group  of  Grand  Lodges, 
politically  and  geographically  affiliated,  have 
reached  a  binding  understanding  to  each  refrain 
from  exercising  jurisdiction  in  the  territory 
where  the  other  is  located,  by  what  process  of 
reasoning,  and  upon  what  recognized  principle 
of  Masonic  Jurisprudence,  can  it  be  claimed  that 
any  precedent  binding  upon  Masonic  bodies  not 
parties  to  such  agreement  results  therefrom? 

In  their  intercourse  with  one  another.  Grand 
Lodges  are  bound  only  by  the  old  constitutions,* 


*  The  Ancient  Constitutions  binding  in  their  force  upon 
all  Masonic  bodies,  are  held  by  Masonic  Jurists  to  include 
the  various  general  enactments  from  the  "Old  York  Con- 


60 


so-called;  by  the  ancient  and  well  recognized 
landmarks;*  and  by  those  rules  of  conduct  neces- 
sarily deducible  from  the  nature  of  the  institu- 
tion of  Freemasonry.  Obedience  to  any  other 
rules  or  regulations  is  purely  voluntary.  It 
could  not  be  otherwise;  for  all  Grand  Lodges  be- 
ing equal  in  dignity  and  authority,  there  is  no 
external  power  by  which  other  rules  and  regula- 
tions can  be  superimposed.    That  any  doctrine 


stitutions"  (926)  to  and  including  "The  General  Regula- 
tions of  1721."  No  one  will  contend,  however,  that  Masonic 
bodies  of  our  day  are  held  to  a  literal  observance  of  these 
early  enactments.  The  best  canon  for  construing  our 
obligations  to  obey  these  ancient  decrees,  we  take  it,  is  to 
make  a  rational  application  of  them  to  Masonic  conditions 
as  they  exist  this  day,  having  in  mind  the  changed  civiliza- 
*tion  of  the  twentieth  century,  but  never  doing  violence  to 
the  true  spirit.  Of  course,  what  is  said  here  has  no  applica- 
tion to  the  Ancient  Landmarks,  for  they  are  to  be  literally 
followed. 

*  *'Of  the  nature  of  the  landmarks  of  Masonry  there  has 
been  some  diversity  of  opinion ;  yet  the  conviction  has  be- 
come settled  that  the  true  principles  constituting  landmarks 
are  those  universal  customs  of  the  order  which  have  gradu- 
ally grown  into  permanent  rules  of  action,  and  originally 
established  by  competent  authority,  at  a  period  so  remote 
that  no  account  of  their  origin  is  to  be  found  in  the  records 
of  Masonic  history,  and  which  were  considered  essential 
to  the  preservation  and  integrity  of  the  institution,  to  pre- 
serve its  purity  and  prevent  innovation.'' — Macoy's  ''History 
and  Encyclopedia  of  Freemasonry/'  p.  216. 

Readers  not  members  of  the  Fraternity  might  be  inter- 
ested in  a  statement  of  the  Ancient  Landmarks.  We  give 
here  the  list  as  made  by  Lockwood  in  his  "Masonic  Law 
and  Practice,"  which  commends  itself  by  its  simplicity  and 


61 


could  be  asserted  contrary  to  so  self-evident  a 
proposition  simply  illustrates  how  much  con- 
fusion may  result  from  an  attempt  to  invest  a 
Masonic  Grand  Lodge  with  all  the  attributes  of 
sovereignty  which  belong  to  a  political  state. 
The  analogy  between  the  two  breaks  down  long 
before  we  reach  any  such  point. 

In  America  where  conflicting  sovereignty  has 
always  been  a  vital  question  in  our  political  his- 


brevity  of  statement — although  we  challenge  the  accuracy 
of  No.  "10."  It  is  true  that  some  of  the  ancient  legal 
manuscripts  contained  the  requirement  that  a  candidate  for 
inititation  must  be  "free-bom."  Nevertheless,  there  is  no 
authority  for  a  claim  that  the  "free-born"  qualification  is 
a  Landmark. 

The  Landmarks,  according  to  Lockwood,  are  as  follows : 

"1.  Belief  in  the  existence  of  a  Supreme  Being,  in  some 
revelation  of  his  will,  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body  and  in 
the  immortality  of  the  soul. 

2.  The  obligations  and  modes  of  recognition,  and  the 
legend  of  the  third  degree. 

3.  The  inculcation  of  the  moral  virtues,  of  benevolence 
and  of  the  doctrines  of  natural  religion,  by  means  of  sym- 
bols derived  from  the  Temple  of  King  Solomon  and  its 
tradition,  and  from  the  usages  and  customs  observed,  and 
from  the  implements  and  materials  used  in  its  construction. 

4.  That  Masons  must  obey  the  moral  law  and  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  country  in  which  they  live. 

5.  That  the  Grand  Master  is  the  head  of  the  Craft. 

6.  That  the  Master  is  head  of  the  Lodge. 

7.  That  the  Grand  Lodge  is  the  supreme  governing  body 
within  its  territorial  jurisdiction. 

8.  That  every  Lodge  has  an  inherent  right  to  be  repre- 


62 


tory  as  a  result  of  our  dual  government,  it  is  not 
surprising  that  we  find  it  hard  to  understand  the 
feasibility  and  Masonic  propriety  of  two  or  more 
sovereign  Grand  bodies  having  co-extensive 
jurisdiction  in  the  same  territory.  And  yet  it  has 
been  and  is  being  amply  demonstrated  that  the 
thing  can  be  done,  and  that  too  without  unto- 
ward consequences.  And  so  it  is  that  the  doctrine 
of  territorial  exclusiveness,  asserted  on  this  con- 


sented in  Grand  Lodge  by  its  first  three  officers,  or  their 
proxies. 

9.  That  every  Lodge  has  power  to  make  Masons,  and  to 
administer  its  own  private  affairs. 

10.  That  every  candidate  must  be  a  man,  of  lawful  age, 
born  of  free  parents,  under  no  restraint  of  liberty,  and  hale 
and  sound,  as  a  man  ought  to  be. 

IL  That  no  candidate  can  be  received  except  by  unani- 
mous ballot,  after  due  notice  of  his  application,  and  due 
inquiry  as  to  his  qualifications. 

12.  That  the  ballot  is  inviolably  secret. 

13.  That  all  Masons,  as  such,  are  peers. 

14.  That  all  Lodges  are  peers. 

15.  That  all  Grand  Lodges  are  peers. 

16.  That  no  person  can  be  installed  Master  of  a  Lodge 
unless  he  be  a  Past  Warden,  except  by  Dispensation  of  the 
Grand  Master. 

17.  That  the  obligations,  means  of  recognition,  and  the 
forms  and  ceremonies  observed  in  conferring  degrees  are 
secret. 

18.  That  no  innovation  can  be  made  upon  the  body  of 
Masonry. 

19.  That  the  Ancient  Landmarks  are  the  Supreme  Law, 
and  cannot  be  changed  or  abrogated." 


63 


tinent  with  so  much  assurance,  is  justly  char- 
acterized as  an  American  doctrine.  That  charac- 
terization could  only  mean  a  lack  of  universal 
acceptation.  To  impeach  the  regularity  of  Afri- 
can Grand  Lodge,  it  is  manifest  that  there  must 
be  shown  a  violation  of  some  vital  principle  of 
Freemasonry  universally  recognized.  A  defini- 
tion of  interjurisdictional  relationship  of  a  par- 
ticular number  of  Grand  Lodges,  dictated  by 
local  convenience,  can  be  invoked  to  the  discredit 
of  no  Masonic  body  which  is  not  voluntarily  a 
party  to  the  compact.  Masonic  principles  are 
not  a  matter  of  geography. 

Besides  being  merely  local  in  its  origin  and 
acceptation,  this  doctrine  owes  whatever  author- 
ity it  possesses  to  Masonic  comity,  and  clearly  to 
that  alone.  It  is  observed  by  American  Grand 
Lodges  as  a  sort  of  entente.  But  if  it  was  as 
universally  accepted  and  as  binding  as  one  of  the 
ancient  landmarks,  there  is  still  a  fatal  obstacle 
in  the  way  of  its  being  used  as  a  means  of  out- 
lawing Negro  Masonry.  To  the  American  prin- 
ciple that  a  Grand  Lodge  once  formed  in  a  given 
territory  by  the  united  action  of  the  majority 
and  at  least  three  of  the  lodges  therein  acquires 
exclusive  jurisdiction  in  each  territory,  there  is 
this  corollary:  all  lodges  in  that  territory  which 
refuse  to  come  under  the  Grand  Lodge  thus 
formed  thereafter  become  clandestine.  Notice 
that  to  become  outlawed  under  the  circum- 


64 


stances  stated,  a  lodge  must  refuse  subordination 
to  the  newly  formed  Grand  body.  A  refusal  im- 
plies, of  course,  the  opportunity  to  affiliate. 
There  is  no  record,  nor  has  it  ever  been  claimed, 
that  African  Lodge  No.  459  was  ever  afforded 
an  opportunity  to  attach  itself  to  any  of  the 
several  supposed  Grand  bodies  existing  or  organ- 
ized in  Massachusetts  while  it  was  a  subordinate 
lodge — although  the  regularity  of  its  existence 
as  such  was  not  questioned  in  those  times.  On 
their  own  theory,  therefore,  the  descendents  of 
these  very  consoHdating  bodies  which  formed 
the  so-called  Grand  Lodge  of  Massachusetts  are 
estopped  from  denying  the  continued  regularity 
of  any  subordinate  lodge  which  their  forebears 
ignored  in  their  plan  of  organization;  for  that 
in  itself  was  a  gross  irregularity.  It  is  as  though 
the  maker  of  a  feast  should  purposely  exclude 
one  from  his  list  of  invited  guests  and  then 
afterward  castigate  him  for  non-attendance. 

The  final  answer  to  the  territorial  argument  is 
the  action  of  the  Mother  Grand  Lodge  in  war- 
ranting African  Lodge  in  the  first  place.  When 
on  the  29th  day  of  September,  1784,  the  English 
Grand  Lodge  granted  a  warrant  in  due  Masonic 
form  to  African  Lodge  No.  459,  located  in  Bos- 
ton, St.  John's  Grand  Lodge  was  over  sixty-one 
years  old,  and  St.  Andrew's  Grand  Lodge,  which 
later  united  with  St.  John's  to  form  the  "Grand 
Lodge  of  Massachusetts,"  had  been  in  existence 


65 


nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century.  So  that  a  territory 
wherein  there  were  already  two  co-existing 
Grand  Lodges  was  thus  invaded.  Yet,  if  the 
right  of  the  English  Grand  Lodge  to  warrant 
African  Lodge  No.  459  was  ever  challenged  in 
the  day  and  time  of  this  action,  there  is  no  record 
of  the  same.  This  action  of  the  mother  Grand 
Lodge  could  only  mean  one  of  two  things — either 
that  there  was  existing  in  Massachusetts,  at  the 
time  in  question,  no  Masonic  body  of  sufficient 
dignity  to  entitle  it  to  the  right  of  exclusive  ter- 
ritorial jurisdiction;  or  else  that  this  right  did 
not  inure  to  such  a  Grand  body  if  one  was  in 
existence.  Nineteenth  century  controversies 
have  shown  that  the  latter  was  the  real  English 
position,  although  it  may  be  seriously  questioned 
whether  in  1792,  after  the  "union"  in  Massachu- 
setts, there  was  legally  any  independent  and 
sovereign  Grand  body  in  that  state. 

To  have  their  latter  day  doctrine  of  territorial 
jurisdiction  reach  back  and  accomplish  what  is 
desired,  our  white  American  brethren  are  re- 
duced to  the  necessity  of  repudiating  the  source 
of  their  own  authority  and  of  ignoring  pre- 
cedents established  by  their  own  creator.  How 
can  they  legally  do  this? 


66 


V. 


THE   ERASURE   OF   AFRICAN  LODGE 
FROM  THE  ENGLISH  ROLL 

Passing  the  question  of  the  right  of  African 
Lodge  to  be,  the  next  contention  of  the  opposi- 
tion is  that  from  the  date  of  the  erasure  of  Afri- 
can Lodge  from  the  EngHsh  roll  it  had  no  right 
to  continue.  For,  it  is  argued,  being  considered 
as  a  dependent  and  subordinate  body,  which  is 
evidenced  by  its  being  carried  on  the  roll  at  all, 
it  follows  that  cutting  it  off  the  roll  set  it  adrift 
and  thereby  revoked  its  right  to  further  exist- 
ence, as  there  can  not  any  longer  be  such  a  thing 
in  Masonry  as  a  subordinate  lodge  accountable 
and  attached  to  no  Grand  body.  This  argument 
like  the  others  is  faulty  in  its  premise  and  over- 
looks essential  historical  facts. 

First  of  all  it  absolutely  ignores  the  circum- 
stances of  the  erasure  and  the  reason  for  it. 
African  Lodge  was  not  singled  out  and  made  the 
subject  of  special  action  in  this  regard,  but  was 
treated  precisely  like  all  American  lodges  then 
remaining  upon  the  rolls  either  of  the  English 
Grand  Lodge  or  of  the  Athol  Grand  Lodge.  As 
an  incident  to  the  union  of  these  two  bodies  in 


67 


i8i3  there  was  a  revision  of  their  respective  rolls, 
as  a  result  of  which  all  American  lodges,  whether 
alive  or  defunct,  were  striken  from  the  rolls. 
Careful  students  of  Masonic  history  are  agreed 
that  this  action  was  largely  influenced  by  the  fact 
of  the  political  separateness  of  the  two  countries 
which  came  as  a  result  of  the  Revolution.  The 
strained  relations  which  naturally  followed  the 
independence  of  the  colonies  made  subordina- 
tion to  English  authority  in  any  form  irksome  to 
Americans.  The  action  taken  by  the  two  Grand 
Lodges  was  a  happy  solution  of  the  matter  so  far 
as  the  fraternity  was  concerned.  Those  lodges 
which  were  already  defunct  of  course  deserved 
such  a  fate;  those  which  were  alive  were  thus  re- 
leased from  their  English  bonds  and  freed 
to  affiliation  with  the  appropriate  American 
branches  of  the  order,  which  privilege  practically 
all  such  lodges  availed  themselves  of.  The  ex- 
istence of  prosperous  and  numerous  American 
Grand  bodies  to  which  these  lodges  might  attach 
themselves  made  it  easy  for  the  English  mother 
lodges  to  cut  off  their  American  offspring.  The 
interesting  fact  is  that  African  Lodge  alone  be- 
came a  foundling. 

The  erasure  of  African  Lodge  in  1813  in  no 
way  affected  its  status;  for  long  before  that  time 
it  had  already  become  a  Grand  Body  and  owed 
no  especial  consideration  to  its  English  Grand 
Lodge,  save  only  that  deference  which  the  full 

68 


grown  child  owes  to  the  parent  to  whose  author- 
ity he  as  a  minor  was  subjected.  At  the  time  of 
erasure  African  Lodge  had  been  superceded  by 
African  Grand  Lodge  and  in  turn  by  Prince  Hall 
Grand  Lodge,  and  of  course  being  a  Grand 
Lodge,  it  did  not  need  to  attach  itself  to  any 
other  Grand  body,  as  would  have  been  the  case 
if  it  had  at  that  time  still  been  a  private  or  sub- 
ordinate lodge. 

One  really  wonders  how  an  argument  so 
easily  refutable  could  be  urged  with  any  serious- 
ness. To  say  that  to  strike  one  Grand  Lodge 
from  the  list  of  those  owing  allegiance  to  an- 
other Grand  Lodge  in  no  way  affects  the  inde- 
pendent status  of  the  former  is  to  state  a  prin- 
ciple so  elementary  as  to  make  ridiculous  any 
argument  which  depends  for  its  force  upon  a  con- 
trary proposition.  And  yet  that  is  precisely  the 
position  of  the  man  who  would  seek  to  make 
capital  out  of  the  fact  that  African  Lodge  was 
dropped  from  the  English  Registry  in  1813,  un- 
less he  has  first  conclusively  proven  that  African 
Lodge  had  not  previously  been  duly  erected  into 
a  Grand  Masonic  body.  That  the  attempt  to  do 
such  a  thing  should  be  made  demonstrates  to 
what  extent  the  opposition  relies  upon  popular 
ignorance  of  the  history  of  early  Masonry  in 
America. 

Much  has  been  made  out  of  the  fact  that  in 
1824  African  Lodge  applied  to  the  English  Grand 

69 


Lodge  for  authority  to  work  the  higher  degrees. 
It  is  argued  that  the  mere  fact  of  the  petition 
shows  that  African  lodge  did  not  itself  consider 
that  it  was  an  independent,  sovereign  Grand 
body.  Of  all  conclusions  which  might  be  drawn 
from  the  act,  that,  in  the  Hght  of  the  circum- 
stances, is  the  least  justifiable.  Upton  says  that 
the  probabilities  are  that  when  the  petition  was 
made  African  Lodge  was  still  unaware  of  its 
erasure  from  the  English  Registry.  In  the  light 
of  the  experience  of  other  lodges  erased  at  the 
same  time,  that  is  an  entirely  reasonable  sup- 
position. However,  there  are  good  reasons  to 
suppose  that  the  petition  was  traceable  to  other 
causes. 

It  will  be  recalled  that  one  of  the  serious  con- 
tentions between  the  ''Ancients"  and  "Moderns" 
during  the  long  and  bitter  fight  covering  nearly 
one  whole  century  related  to  the  right  to  confer 
the  Royal  Arch  degrees.  The  "Moderns"  in  the 
early  part  of  the  conflict  were  firm  in  their  op- 
position to  the  higher  degrees  which  were  stig- 
matized as  an  innovation.  But  the  "Ancients," 
under  the  inspiration  of  the  resourceful  and  in- 
trepid Dermott,  were  quick  to  see  in  the  capi- 
tular degrees  an  effective  weapon  in  their  war- 
fare for  prestige;  and  so  well  was  it  used  as 
such,  that  the  "Moderns"  or  regulars  were  forced 
to  abandon  their  former  attitude  of  implacability 
toward  these  degrees.   This  they  did  gracefully, 

70 


however,  for  though  a  Royal  Arch  Chapter  was 
formed  in  1765,  as  a  defensive  measure  to  arrest 
the  defections  of  "Moderns"  to  the  "Ancients," 
for  exaltation,  yet  the  Grand  Lodge  of  England 
took  no  official  notice  of  its  existence.  Never- 
theless, when  the  union  was  affected  in  1813, 
while  it  was  declared  that  masonry  consisted  of 
the  three  symbolic  degrees,  the  "Holy  Royal 
Arch"  was  specifically  and  legally  recognized.* 
Remembering  the  controversy  that  had  been 
waged  concerning  the  Royal  Arch  degrees,  and 


*  ''The  Royul  Arch  Degree. — The  Moderns,  or  as  mor^e 
justly  styled,  the  Constitutional  Grand  Lodge,  did  not  recog- 
nize the  Royal  Arch  Degree,  nor  introduce  it  into  their 
system,  until  some  thirty  years  later  than  did  the  Ancients. 
In  1758  the  Grand  Secretary  declared,  'Our  Society  is 
neither  Arch,  Royal  Arch,  nor  Ancient.'  About  the  year 
1770  this  Grand  Lodge  authorized  Thomas  Dunckerley  to 
inaugurate  a  new  system  of  lectures,  in  doing  which  he 
'fabricated  the  Royal  Arch  for  the  Modern  Masons.'  This 
met  with  much  opposition,  but  his  popularity  and  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Grand  Master  prevailed  to  introduce  the 
Royal  Arch  Degree  into  the  system  of  the  Moderns,  at  a 
period,  as  Dr.  Oliver  thinks,  not  earlier  than  the  dedication 
of  Freemasons'  Hall  in  1776. 

"From  what  has  been  heretofore  said,  it  appears  that 
during  1738-40  the  Royal  Arch  Degree  was  adopted  into 
the  system  of  the  'Grand  Lodge  of  England  according  to 
the  Old  Constitutions,'  otherwise  called  the  'Ancients,' 
and  later,  the  'Athol  Grand  Lodge.'  In  1776  a  similar 
degree  was  adopted  by  the  'Constitutional  Grand  Lodge,' 
or  the  'Moderns';  and  in  1813  it  was  formally  recognized 
as  a  part  of  the  York  Rite  by  the  United  Grand  Lodge  of 
England." — Chapman,  The  Capitular  Degrees. 


71 


that  their  regularity  as  a  constituent  part  of 
Masonry  had  been  persistently  challenged  by  the 
very  Grand  body  from  which  it  sprang,  it  is  but 
natural  that  Prince  Hall  Grand  Lodge  should 
have  had  misgivings  about  the  matter.  It  is  true 
that  this  controversy  had  terminated  eleven 
years  before,  but  in  those  days  of  slow  communi- 
cation there  is  evidence  that  some  Masonic 
bodies  in  closer  touch  with  England  than  Prince 
Hall  could  ever  have  been  were  at  the  time  in 
question  still  ignorant  even  of  the  articles  of 
the  union  effected  in  1813.  Moreover,  what  is 
more  reasonable  than  that  a  supposed  enlarge- 
ment of  powers  should  have  been  sought  from 
the  same  source  whence  came  the  powers  orig- 
inally? It  is  also  to  be  remembered  that  the  au- 
thority of  Royal  Arch  bodies,  as  such,  was  not 
at  that  time  recognized  as  distinct  and  separate 
and  independent  of  the  blue  lodge  to  the  extent 
that  it  is  today.  Finally,  it  must  be  pointed  out 
that  in  1824  the  American  Grand  Lodges  had 
not  entirely  shaken  off  the  parental  authority  of 
the  English  Grand  Lodge.  While  not  submit- 
ting directly  to  its  authority  they  were  still 
under  its  influence. 

With  these  circumstances  in  mind  it  is  appar- 
ent to  what  extent  the  language  of  the  petition 
of  1824  must  be  tortured  to  obtain  any  such 
meaning  or  significance  as  our  opponents  would 
give  it. 


72 


VI. 


ARGUMENT  OF  THE  "FREE-BORN" 
QUALIFICATION 

Among  the  points  brought  to  the  surface  by 
the  fine-tooth  comb  of  the  opposition  is  an  al- 
leged ritualistic  defect  involving  the  qualifica- 
tion of  candidates.  It  is  contended  that  early- 
Negro  lodges  struck  from  the  Masonic  Ritual 
the  words  "free-born"  and  substituted  therefor 
the  word  "free"  in  describing  the  requisites  for 
initiation.  They  who  unearthed  this  objection 
must  have  had  access  to  historical  data  not  usu- 
ally available;  for  a  most  exhaustive  biblio- 
graphy has  failed  to  yield  to  the  writer  any  in- 
formation on  which  it  may  be  stated  as  a  cer- 
tainty that  early  Negro  lodges  made  any  such 
substitution.  The  author  can  furthermore  tes- 
tify out  of  extensive  and  intimate  knowledge 
that  Negro  lodges  today  universally  use  the 
word  "free-born."  The  contrary  statement  is 
unquestionably  the  outgrowth  of  the  assumption 
that  owing  to  the  existence  of  slavery  such  a 
qualification  must  have  been  required,  because 
very  few  Negroes  in  the  United  States  had  been 
born  free.  But  an  assumption,  however  reason- 
able, is  after  all  only  an  assumption  and  not  a 
proven  fact. 

73 


But  suppose  the  first  Negro  lodges  in  this 
country  did  change  the  Ritual  to  the  extent  in 
question.  What  then?  Does  it  follow  that  such 
action  vitiates  the  entire  Masonic  regularity  of 
those  making  such  a  change?  By  no  means. 
How  far  are  Masonic  Grand  bodies  bound  in  the 
matter  of  particular  ritualistic  formula  and 
statement?  This  far:  No  Grand  Lodge  may 
change  in  any  respect  the  ancient  modes  of  rec- 
ognition. This  is  a  landmark.  No  Grand  Lodge 
may  so  tamper  with  the  Ritual  as  to  destroy  in 
any  essential  particular  the  ancient  legend  of 
the  Temple  Builder — this  is  likewise  a  land- 
mark.*   The  division  of  symbolic  Masonry  into 


*  "The  Temple  leg^end,  however,  must  be  retained  as  a 
part  of  the  ritual  as  long  as  the  present  system  of  Specula- 
tive Freemasonry  exists,  and  the  legendary  and  allegorical 
narrative  must  be  repeated  by  the  Master  of  the  Lodge  on 
the  occasion  of  every  initiation  into  the  mysteries  of  the 
Third  Degree,  because,  though  it  is  no  longer  to  be  accepted 
as  an  historical  statement,  yet  the  events  which  it  records 
are  still  recognized  as  a  myth  containing  within  itself,  and 
independent  of  all  questions  of  probability,  a  symbolical 
significance  of  the  highest  importance. 

"This  mythical  legend  of  the  Temple,  and  of  the  Temple 
Builder,  must  ever  remain  an  inseparable  part  of  the  Ma- 
sonic ritual,  and  the  narrative  must  be  repeated  on  all  ap- 
propriate occasions,  because,  without  this  legend,  Specu- 
lative Masonry  would  lose  its  identity  and  would  abandon 
the  very  object  of  its  original  institution.  On  this  legend, 
whether  true  or  false,  whether  a  history  or  a  myth,  is  the 
most  vital  portion  of  the  symbolism  of  Freemasonry 
founded." — Mackey-Singleton,  "History  of  Freemasonry 
p,  965. 


74 


three  degrees  must  be  observed,  and  the  object 
of  all  ritualistic  practice  must  be  to  lead  the 
neophyte  to  the  true  "word"  by  means  of  the  well 
recognized  symbolism,  and  more  particularly  by 
use  of  the  ancient  legend  already  mentioned. 
Any  Masonic  ritual  which  substantially  con- 
forms to  these  requirements  is  above  just 
reproach. 

The  Masonic  Ritual  is  claimed  to  have  been 
handed  down  from  one  generation  to  another, 
by  word  of  mouth.  The  commitment  of  the 
Ritual  to  any  sort  of  written  form,  even  in  char- 
acters not  generally  intelligible  to  the  profane,  is 
not  in  strict  accord  with  the  Masonic  vows. 
Indeed,  many  white  Grand  Lodges,  in  order  to 
preserve  the  fiction  of  oral  transmission,  shut 
their  eyes  to  the  prevalent  practice  of  using 
"cipher  work,"  and  disavow  in  their  Ordi- 
nances their  recognition  of  any  written  Masonic 
Ritual.  Now  if  it  is  true  that  recognition  is  to 
be  accorded  alone  to  what  has  been  received  into 
the  "listening  ear,"  how  absurd  at  once  becomes 
the  claim  of  any  Ritual  to  verbal  infallibility. 
Moreover,  what  credible  white  witness  is  there 
to  testify  that  the  ancient  questions  orally  pro- 
pounded to  candidates,  within  Negro  lodges, 
contained  the  alteration  claimed? 

We  advert  to  our  original  position.  A  mere 
change  of  ritualistic  detail,  unless  it  involves  a 
violation  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  Masonry, 

75 


as  before  declared  in  these  pages,  can  not  im- 
peach the  regularity  of  the  Grand  body  making 
such  a  change.  Here  is  a  case  in  point.  Many 
Grand  Lodges  of  today  prohibit  from  member- 
ship in  the  order  any  man  engaged  in  the  sale  of 
spirituous  and  intoxicating  liquors,  yet  there 
was  no  ancient  rule  to  that  effect.  Must  we  say, 
therefore,  that  because  the  ancient  Halliwell 
Poem  contained  no  bar  against  tavern  keepers 
modern  Grand  Lodges  have  no  right  to  make 
the  prohibition  referred  to?  There  are  as  an- 
cient and  as  strong  Masonic  precedents  for  re- 
quiring that  candidates  for  the  mysteries  of  Ma- 
sonry shall  be  "free"  as  there  are  that  they  shall 
be  '*free-born."  And  Grand  bodies  making  such 
requirement  are  better  within  their  rights  than 
are  those  American  Grand  Lodges  who  add 
"white*'  to  their  list  of  qualifications  for  initia- 
tion. If  Negro  lodges  ever  used  the  word  "free'* 
instead  of  "free-born"  they  can  point  to  the  au- 
thority of  the  Ancient  Regius  manuscript,  and 
to  the  action  of  the  English  Grand  Lodge  in  the 
early  part  of  the  last  century;  but  our  white 
friends  will  find  neither  landmark,  nor  sound 
usage,  nor  ancient  precedent  to  sustain  them  in 
basing  Masonic  eligibility  upon  race.*  Surely 

*  "2.  Behaviour  After  The  Lodge  is  Over  and  the 
Brethren  Not  Gone. 

"You  may  enjoy  yourselves  with  innocent  Mirth,  treating 
one  another  according  to  Ability,  but  avoiding  all  Excess, 


76 


that  were  a  ritualistic  innovation  odious  enough 
to  impugn  the  Masonry  of  its  sponsors — if  such 
be  possible. 

The  reason  behind  the  ancient  rule  requiring 
that  initiates  should  be  free  was  that  if  a  slave, 
an  apprentice,  a  minor,  or  any  other  person  not 
sui  juris,  were  made  a  Mason,  his  master  would 
have  a  right  under  the  civil  law  to  invade  the 
privacy  of  a  lodge  in  pursuit  of  his  slave  or  ward, 
and  to  prevent  such  an  invasion  all  Masons  were 
solemnly  bound.  To  obviate  the  possibility  of 
any  clash  between  Masonic  and  civil  authority, 
therefore,  the  rule  was  made.  For  in  spite  of  the 
claim  of  ignorant  persons  to  the  contrary,  it  has 
always  been  the  design  of  the  Masonic  institu- 
tion to  teach  its  votaries  to  yield  ready  and  loyal 


or  forcing  any  Brother  to  eat  or  drink  beyond  his  Inclina- 
tion, or  hindering  him  from  going  when  his  Occasions  call 
him,  or  doing  or  saying  any  thing  offensive,  or  that  may 
forbid  an  easy  and  free  Conversation ;  for  that  would  blast 
our  Harmony,  and  defeat  our  laudable  Purposes.  There- 
fore no  private  Piques  or  Quarrels  must  be  brought  within 
the  Door  of  the  Lodge  far  less  any  Quarrels  about  Religion, 
or  Nations,  or  State  Policy,  we  being  only,  as  Masons,  of 
the  Catholick  Religion  above-mention'd ;  we  are  also  of  all 
Nations,  Tongues,  Kindreds,  and  Languages,  and  are  re- 
solv'd  against  all  Politicks,  as  what  never  yet  conduced  to 
the  Welfare  of  the  Lodge,  nor  ever  will.  This  Charge  has 
been  always  strictly  enjoin'd  and  observed;  but  especially 
ever  since  the  Reformation  in  Britain,  or  the  Dissent  and 
Secession  of  these  Nations  from  the  Communion  of  Rome." 
— Charges  of  A  Freemason,  Edition  of  1723. 
(The  italics  are  mine.) 


77 


obedience  to  the  civil  authority.*  If  the  fore- 
going is  the  true  reason  behind  the  rule,  it  is  at 
once  apparent  that  it  matters  little  whether  a 
candidate  for  the  mysteries  was  born  free,  or 
not,  so  long  as  he  is  free  when  he  presents  him- 
self for  initiation.  Masonry  is  interested  pri- 
marily in  the  qualifications  of  a  man  at  the  time 
when  he  seeks  admission  into  the  order.  If  he 
had  previous  and  involuntary  disabilities  from 
which  he  had  been  manumitted,  he  is  Masonic- 
ally  acceptable  if  possessed  of  the  other  neces- 
sary qualifications.  Any  contrary  principle  is 
utterly  at  variance  with  the  very  genius  of  the 
institution. 


*  "II.    Of  the  Civil  Magistrate  supreme  and  sub- 
ordinate. 

"A  Mason  is  a  peaceable  Subject  to  the  Civil  Powers, 
wherever  he  resides  or  works,  and  is  never  to  be  concern'd 
in  Plots  and  Conspiracies  against  the  Peace  and  Welfare 
of  the  Nation,  nor  to  behave  himself  undutifully  to  inferior 
Magistrates;  for  as  Masonry  hath  been  always  injured  by 
War,  Bloodshed,  and  Confusion,  so  ancient  Kings  and 
Princes  have  been  much  dispos'd  to  encourage  the  Crafts- 
men, because  of  their  Peaceableness  and  Loyalty,  whereby 
they  practically  answer'd  the  Cavils  of  their  Adversaries, 
and  promoted  the  Honour  of  the  Fraternity,  who  ever 
flourished  in  Times  of  Peace.  So  that  if  a  Brother  should 
be  a  Rebel  against  the  State,  he  is  not  to  be  countenanc'd 
in  his  Rebellion,  however  he  may  be  pitied  as  an  unhappy 
Man ;  and,  if  convicted  of  no  other  Crime,  though  the  loyal 
Brotherhood  must  and  ought  to  disown  his  Rebellion,  and 
give  no  Umbrage  or  Ground  of  political  Jealousy  to  the 
Government  for  the  time  being ;  they  cannot  expel  him  from 


78 


the  Lodge,  and  his  Relation  to  it  remains  indefeasible." — 
Charges  of  a  Freemason,  Ed.  1723. 

This  point  is  well  made  by  Grand  Master  Upton  in  his 

book,  in  which  connection  he  quotes  from  the  Ancient 

Regius  Poem  as  follows: 

"Gef  yn  logge  he  were  y-take, 

Muche  desese  hyt  mygth  ther  make. 
*       *       *  ♦ 

For  alle  the  masonus  that  ben  there 

Wol  stonde  togedur  hoi  y-fere." 
Besides  the  reasons  here  suggested,  this  qualification  is 
undoubtedly  a  relic  of  the  era  of  Operative  Masonry,  and 
is  among  the  few  useless  requirements  which  escaped  the 
discard  after  the  Institution  became  purely  speculative  in 
character.  While  we  owe  nearly  all  that  is  vital  in  our 
symbolism  to  our  inheritance  from  Operative  Masonry,  still 
we  are  not  obliged  to  a  blind  adherence  to  points  which  our 
changed  society  renders  no  longer  material,  however  much 
they  have  been  insisted  upon  by  our  ancient  brothers  who 
made  up  the  guilds  of  architects  and  builders. 


79 


VII. 

AS  TO  RECOGNITION 

*7  do  not  love  thee,  Doctor  Fell, 
The  reason  why  I  can  not  tell; 
But  this  alone  I  know  full  well, 
I  do  not  love  thee,  Doctor  Fell/' 

How  well  do  these  famous  old  lines  epitomize 
the  unreasonableness  of  prejudice.  That  same 
unreasonable  and  unreasoning  prejudice  is  alone 
responsible  for  the  invention  of  the  alleged  rea- 
sons against  the  legitimacy  of  Negro  Masonry. 
To  the  uninitiated  it  is  not  readily  apparent  as 
to  why  white  American  Masons  should  trouble 
themselves  to  invent  such  reasons.  Powerful 
motives  are  usually  behind  persistent  distortion 
of  facts  and  persistent  misinterpretation  of  his- 
tory. To  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  true 
inwardness  of  the  Masonic  institution,  it  is  all 
plain  enough.  Masonry  is  entirely  different 
from  all  other  fraternal  organizations.  In  other 
fraternal  bodies  if  one  element  in  its  member- 
ship is  offended  because  of  the  presence  of  an- 
other element,  the  disgruntled  ones  usually  settle 
the  difficulty  by  withdrawing  and  setting  up  for 
themselves  an  "Independent"  or  "Improved" 

81 


branch  of  the  same  order.  In  Masonry  such 
things  can  not  be  done.  Secession  is  impossible, 
and  any  designation  intended  to  indicate  sepa- 
ration or  distinction  carries  upon  its  face  its  own 
impeachment.  The  same  thing  under  another 
title  is  the  ruse  which  has  been  successfully  em- 
ployed by  white  Americans  in  other  "ancient" 
orders  to  escape  affiliation  with  Negroes.  But 
no  such  things  can  avail  them  in  Masonry.  For 
every  regular  Mason  is  possessed  of  certain  in- 
alienable rights  which  must  be  recognized  and 
respected  by  every  other  Mason  everywhere. 
One  could  not  deliberately  make  a  catalog 
which  would  be  more  offensive  to  your  white 
Americans  than  are  the  inherent  rights  and  cor- 
responding obligations  of  an  individual  Mason, 
as  a  basis  of  fraternal  contact  with  a  Negro, 
whatever  might  be  the  merits  of  the  latter.  Here 
is  the  source  of  all  the  trouble.  To  adapt  a 
famous  figure,  if  in  all  things  Masonic  the  white 
and  black  Americans  could  be  one,  and  yet  in 
matters  social  be  as  separate  as  the  fingers  of 
the  hand,  then  no  one  would  ever  hear  impugned 
the  Masonry  of  Prince  Hall  and  his  followers. 
Unfortunately,  Masonry  knows  no  caste.  The 
badge  of  a  Mason  to  its  worthy  possessor  is  an 
honor  which  is  equal  to  any  which  he  could  ever 
receive  from  kings  or  potentates.  To  a  true 
Mason  an  admission  of  his  inferiority  to  any 
man  is  a  disavowal  of  his  Masonry. 


82 


It  is  clear  therefore  that  the  only  consistent 
course  open  to  the  white  Mason  in  this  country 
who  desires  to  avoid  his  obligations  to  his  Negro 
>  brethren  is  to  refuse  them  recognition.  That  he 
can  justify  only  by  challenging  the  legitimacy  of 
Negro  Masonry.  The  interesting  thing  about  it 
is  that  the  sufficiency  of  the  grounds  of  the  chal- 
lenge is  not  apt  to  affect  their  attitude.  If  these 
pages  had  been  written  to  demonstrate  the  in- 
tellectual and  moral  obliquity  of  the  average 
white  American  wherever  the  race  question  is 
involved,  and  especially  to  shame  him  out  of  his 
untenable  position  on  Negro  Masonry,  the  writer 
would  have  had  his  efforts  for  his  pains.  Logic 
and  ethical  consistency  are  no  obstacles  in  the 
way  of  American  prejudice.  One  black  face  is 
moral  pandemonium.  White  Masons  of  Amer- 
ica would  invent  m^ny  more  absurdities  than 
these  with  which  they  now  charge  Prince  Hall 
before  they  would  admit  the  truth  as  to  why  they 
deny  recognition  to  Negro  Masons.  Moreover, 
there  are  very  few  among  them  who  have  the 
courage  of  their  illustrious  General  Albert  Pike, 
who  said,  "Prince  Hall  Lodge  was  as  regular  a 
lodge  as  any  lodge  created  by  competent  author- 
ty,  and  had  a  perfect  right  (as  other  lodges  in 
Europe  did)  to  establish  other  lodges,  making 
itself  a  mother  lodge."  And  yet  this  also:  ''I 
took  my  obligation  to  white  men,  not  to  Negroes. 
When  I  have  to  accept  Negroes  as  brothers  or 


83 


leave  Masonry,  I  shall  leave  it."  *  Point  out,  if 
you  will,  the  faulty  reasoning  of  this  man  in  that 
he  considers  the  binding  force  of  a  vow  to  de- 
pend upon  the  person  who  happens  to  administer 
it,  rather  than  upon  its  content.  Still  the  manly 
frankness  of  his  attitude  is  in  conspicuous  con- 
trast with  that  of  the  average  of  his  fellows. 

The  completest  possible  vindication  of  Negro 
Masonry  would  not  bring  to  it  the  recognition 
of  the  white  Masons  of  the  United  States.  This 


*  The  letter  of  General  Albert  Pike,  Sovereig^n  Grand 
Commander,  A.  &  A.  Scottish  Rite,  containing:  these  re- 
markable sentiments — remarkable  for  a  Mason — has  become 
so  famous  a  part  of  the  documentary  history  of  Negro 
Masonry,  that  we  hardly  dare  omit  it. 

"Alexandria,  Va.,  13th  September,  1875. 

"My  Dear  Friend  and  Brother. — I  can  see  as  plainly  as 
you  that  the  Negro  question  is  going  to  make  trouble.  There 
are  plenty  of  regular  Negro  Masons  and  Negro  lodges  in 
South  America  and  the  West  Indies,  and  our  folks  only 
stave  off  the  question  by  saying  that  Negro  Masons  here  are 
clandestine.  Prince  Hall  Lodge  was  as  regular  a  Lodge  as 
any  lodge  created  by  competent  authority,  and  had  a  perfect 
right  (as  other  lodges  in  Europe  did)  to  establish  other 
lodges,  making  itself  a  Mother  Lodge.  That's  the  way  the 
Berlin  lodges,  Three  Globes  and  Royal  York,  became  Grand 
Lodges. 

"The  Grand  Orient  of  Hayti  is  as  regular  as  any  other. 
So  is  the  Grand  Orient  of  the  Dominican  Republic,  which, 
I  dare  say,  has  Negroes  in  it  and  Negro  lodges  under  it. 

"Again,  if  the  Negro  lodges  are  not  regular  they  can  eas- 
ily get  regularized.  If  our  Grand  Lodges  won't  recognize 
Negro  lodges,  they  have  the  right  to  go  elsewhere.  The 
Grand  Lodge  can't  say  to  eight  or  more  Masons,  black  or 


84 


is  no  calamity.  Quite  the  contrary.  So  far  from 
considering  ultimate  white  recognition  as  an  in- 
dispensable end  to  be  sought,  the  writer  believes 
that  it  is  not  even  an  end  to  be  desired,  unless  it 
is  preceded  by  a  complete  reversal  of  the  attitude 
of  white  folk  on  many  points  in  the  race  question 
usually  deemed  by  them  to  be  most  vital — a  con- 
summation which  will  scarcely  be  witnessed  by 
any  person  living  at  the  time  of  the  publication 
of  this  book.    But  after  all  what  does  it  matter 


white,  we  will  not  give  you  a  charter  because  you  are 
Negroes,  or  because  you  wish  to  work  the  Scottish  Rite, 
and  you  shall  not  go  elsewhere  to  get  one.  That  latter 
part  is  bosh. 

''Hamburg  recognizes  the  Grand  Lodges.  Yes,  and  so 
the  German  Grand  Lodge  Confederation  is  going  to  do,  and 
so  will  the  Grand  Orient  of  France  before  long. 

"Of  course,  if  negrophily  continues  to  be  the  religion  es- 
tablished by  law  of  your  States,  there  will  be  before  long 
somewhere  a  beginning  of  recognition  of  Negro  bodies. 
Then  the  Royal  Arch  and  Templar  bodies  of  Negroes  must 
be  taken  in,  and  Masonry  go  down  to  their  level.  Will  your 
plan  work  ?  I  think  not.  I  think  there  is  no  middle  ground 
between  rigid  exclusion  of  Negroes  or  recognition,  and  af- 
filiation with  the  whole  mass. 

•  *Tf  they  are  not  Masons,  how  protect  them  as  such  or  at 
all?  If  they  are  Masons,  how  deny  them  affiliation  or  have 
two  supreme  powers  in  one  jurisdiction. 

*T  am  not  inclined  to  meddle  in  the  matter.  I  took  my 
obligations  to  white  men,  not  to  Negroes.  When  I  have 
to  accept  Negroes  as  brothers  or  leave  Masonry,  I  shall 
leave  it. 

"I  am  interested  to  keep  the  Ancient  and  Accepted  Rite 
uncontaminated,  in  our  country  at  least,  by  the  leprosy  of 


85 


to  Negro  Masonry  whether  it  is  "recognized"  by 
the  white  Masons  of  the  United  States?  Con- 
sider what  non-"recognition"  really  means.  It 
means  first  that  the  white  Masons  consider 
themselves  bound  to  Negro  Masons  by  none  of 
those  engagements  which  every  regular  Mason 
must  undertake  toward  his  brothers  and  fellows. 
In  the  second  place,  non-"recognition"  means  a 
refusal  to  observe  the  customary  amenities  of 


Negro  association.  Our  Supreme  Council  can  defend  its 
jurisdiction,  and  it  is  the  law-maker.  There  can  not  be  a 
lawful  body  of  that  Rite  in  our  jurisdiction  unless  it  is 
created  by  us. 

**I  am  not  so  sure  but  that,  what  with  immensity  of  num- 
bers, want  of  a  purpose  worth  laboring  for,  general  indif- 
ference to  obligations,  pitiful  charity  and  large  expenses, 
fuss,  feathers  and  fandango,  big  temples  and  large  debts, 
Masonry  is  become  a  great  helpless,  inert  mass  that  will 
some  day,  before  long,  topple  over,  and  go  under.  If  you 
wish  it  should,  I  think  you  can  hasten  the  catastrophe  by 
urging  a  protectorate  of  the  Negroes.  Better  let  the  thing 
drift.  Apres  nous  le  deluge. 

"Truly  yours, 

Albert  Pike." 

(111.  Comp.   John  D.  Caldwell.) 

Shamelessly  has  this  bold  man  unmasked  the  whole 
miserable  pretence.  It  is  not  from  the  spectre  of  Irregu- 
larity that  they  shrink.  It  is  not  their  abhorrence  of  a  clan- 
destine body  having  no  right  to  practice  Masonry,  that 
draws  them  apart  from  Prince  Hall  and  his  followers.  It 
is  their  own  inability  to  grasp  the  true  essence  of  the  Fra- 
ternity. They  can  not  be  converted  to  the  "established 
religion"  of  "negrophily."  They  can  not  be  converted  to 
the  religion  of  universal  Brotherhood,  which  is  Masonry. 


86 


Masonic  intercourse.  Thus  defined  we  again 
ask,  how  can  it  matter  to  Negro  Masonry  that 
men  who  take  their  Masonic  vows  with  mental 
reservations  refuse  to  ''recognize"  other  men 
who  subscribe  unequivocally  to  the  sacred  en- 
gagements of  the  fraternity?  * 

So  far  from  lamenting  the  absolute  disassocia- 
tion  of  Negro  Masonry  from  the  white  Masonry 
of  this  country,  our  attitude  towards  that  fact 
should  be  that  of  serene  indifference.  Because 
of  what  it  is  meant  to  imply,  and  because  of  its 
usual  accompaniment  of  degradation,  the  Negro 


*  Let  it  be  remembered  that  Masonic  regularity  is  not 
dependent  upon  ''Recognition."  The  whole  list  of  human 
frailties  may  stand  behind  a  refusal  of  one  set  of  Masons 
to  "recognize"  another.  One  could  safely  wager,  I  believe, 
that  far  more  than  half  of  the  white  Masons  of  the  United 
States  who  would  refuse  to  accord  to  their  Negro  brothers 
Masonic  fellowship,  have  never  heard  of  African  Lodge,  or 
of  Prince  Hall,  and  a  still  larger  number  know  little  or 
nothing  of  the  merits  of  the  case  for  Negro  Masonry.  In 
their  bigoted  ignorance  they  cannot  conceive  of  a  Negro 
Masonry  on  their  own  level.  I  recall  an  appropriate  par- 
able: A  Scotch  sea  captain  was  nearing  a  trading  port  ^ 
where  favorable  wharfage  was  of  very  great  value.  Sud- 
denly there  hove  in  sight  the  vessel  of  his  dearest  rival. 
There  at  once  ensued  a  bitter  race  to  make  the  place  of 
best  advantage.  Seeing  himself  completely  out-distanced, 
our  Scotch  friend  in  utter  desperation,  fell  upon  his  knees 
and  lifting  his  eyes  heavenward,  thus  prayed,  with  emphasis 
as  indicated:  "Oh  my  Father!  sittest  Thou  in  peace  on 
Thy  throne  and  beholdest  yon  out-lander  about  to  make 
port  ahead  of  one  of  Thine  own  children?"  The  application 
is  obvious. 


87 


people  frequently  find  themselves  compelled  to 
oppose  the  separation  of  the  races.  This  fact  is 
often  seized  upon  by  detractors,  both  within  and 
without  the  ranks,  as  evidence  of  our  lack  of 
proper  racial  self-esteem.  More  is  the  reason, 
therefore,  that  on  those  occasions  when  it  does 
no  hurt  to  be  by  ourselves,  we  ought  to  be  con- 
spicuous in  our  contentment  to  have  it  so. 

The  followers  of  Prince  Hall  are  regular 
Masons.  Why  should  they  crave  "recognition" 
from  those  whose  Masonic  divestment  has  left 
them  still  clothed  in  all  the  pettiness  and  preju- 
dice of  the  profane;  and  to  whom  the  word 
brother  is  a  designation  of  a  social  status  rather 
than  of  the  universal  kinship  of  men? 

The  followers  of  Prince  Hall  believe  in  the 
universality  of  Masonry.  Shall  they  feel  ag- 
grieved at  being  denied  affiliation  with  those 
whose  Masonry  is  of  such  sort  that  they  halt  the 
worthy  candidate  at  the  porch  of  the  Temple  to 
inquire  if  he  be  Aryan,  or  Finn,  or  Hottentot? 

The  followers  of  Prince  Hall  are  proud  of  their 
Masonry.  Shall  they  therefore  aspire  to  assume 
Masonic  offices  for  those  who  would  deem  it  a 
condescension  to  accept  the  same?  Or  shall  they 
desire  to  take  their  distress  to  those  who  would 
consider  any  proffered  relief  not  the  charity  of  a 
Mason  but  the  alms  of  a  profane? 

The  only  recognition  which  Negro  Masons 
could  ever  accept  without  self-stultification  would 


88 


be  recognition  coupled  with  union  with  them 
under  the  wide  baldachin  of  universal  Masonry, 
from  which  the  white  brethren  have  drawn 
themselves  apart.  As  to  recognition  on  any- 
other  basis — a  fig! 


89 


VIII. 


HOW  SHALL  NEGRO  MASONS  TREAT 
WHITE  AMERICAN  MASONS? 

Two  very  troublesome  questions  have  been  a 
constant  source  of  perplexity  to  Negro  Masons: 
the  first  is,  v^^hat  should  be  the  official  attitude  of 
Negro  Masonry  towards  white  American  Ma- 
sonry? 

The  difficulty  in  answering  this  question  is  the 
difficulty  of  deciding  how  to  treat  these  regular 
Masons  in  the  manner  which  their  own  un-Ma- 
sonic  attitude  deserves,  and  yet  be  consistent  and 
true  to  Masonic  vows.  Some  few  Negro  Ma- 
sonic bodies  have  adopted  the  easy  course  of 
paying  the  white  Masons  back  in  kind,  i.  e.,  chal- 
lenging the  legitimacy  of  their  Masonry.  These 
bodies,  in  the  language  of  Grand  Master  Prince 
Hall,  are  "chargeable  with  the  inconsistency  of 
acting,  themselves,  the  part  which  they  condemn 
and  oppose  in  others."  Of  all  courses  it  ill  be- 
comes us  most  to  emulate  that  in  our  opponents 
which  we  ourselves  most  severely  criticize.  We 
are  driven  to  no  such  extremes.  We  need  not 
follow  the  white  Masons  into  any  hair-splitting 
subtleties  to  get  them  off  our  Masonic  con- 
science.   They  have  themselves  made  the  task 

91 


much  more  simple.  When  a  man  says  to  you 
that  you  are  not  a  Mason,  he  at  once  absolves 
you  from  all  Masonic  obligations  towards  him. 
And  to  justify  your  conduct  in  treating  him  ac- 
cordingly it  is  not  necessary  for  you  to  show  t^at 
he  himself  is  not  a  regular  Mason.  When  one 
Mason  stigmatizes  another  as  clandestine,  he 
thereby  severs  the  fraternal  cord  which  binds 
him  to  that  other. 

Every  rule  of  self  respect  requires  that  Negro 
Masonry  should  officially  hold  itself  aloof  from 
white  Masonry  wherever  it  is  the  policy  of  the 
latter  to  deny  the  regularity  of  Prince  Hall 
Masons. 

The  second  question  presents  a  more  difficult 
problem.  The  attitude  of  one  organization  to- 
wards another  organization  can  be  easily  deter- 
mined. An  organization  is  impersonal.  Man  to 
man  contact  is  altogether  another  matter.  How 
shall  the  individual  Negro  Mason  treat  the  indi- 
vidual white  Mason  who  is  inclined  to  disregard 
the  inhibitions  of  his  own  Grand  Lodges  and  to 
hold  Masonic  intercourse  with  Negro  Masons? 
Let  us  say  at  once  that  whenever  such  men 
evince  a  willingness  to  meet  their  black  brethren 
on  the  level  of  Masonic  equality,  we  can  afford 
to  be  as  generous  as  they.  So  long  as  the  con- 
duct of  the  individual  white  Mason  whom  we 
meet  in  no  way  offends  the  strict  proprieties  of 
Masonic  intercourse,  we  are  entirely  justified  in 

92 


fraternizing  with  him;  for  if  in  the  high  Masonic 
sense  he  treats  us  as  a  brother,  we  need  not  con- 
cefn  ourselves  overmuch  about  the  fact  that  he 
disregards  the  local  ordinances  of  his  own  Grand 
Lodge.  That  is  his  matter.  Of  course  by  fra- 
ternizing under  the  circumstances  here  recited 
is  not  meant  official  participation  in  Masonic 
labors;  but  rather  the  ordinary  amenities  of  in- 
formal personal  contact. 

In  meeting  white  men  who  are  inclined  to  be 
Masonically  cordial,  however,  the  Negro  Mason 
should  always  be  punctiliously  insistent  that  he 
be  treated  absolutely  as  a  Masonic  equal.  It 
would  seem  that  that  would  go  without  saying. 
But  the  simple  truth  is,  the  Negro  has  been  so 
much  mistreated  by  the  other  race,  that  he  is  all 
but  inclined  to  put  a  premium  upon  ordinary 
decent  behaviour  towards  him.  The  writer  re- 
calls the  enthusiasm  of  a  recital  by  one  of  the 
oldest  Past  Masters  of  his  own  lodge,  how  dur- 
ing his  incumbency  in  the  chair  certain  promi- 
nent white  Masons  had  been  admitted  to  his 
lodge  to  witness  the  conferring  of  the  Master's 
degree;  and  how  his  visitors  gave  vent  to  their 
utter  astonishment  at  the  proficiency  of  their 
Negro  brethren  in  the  Masonic  Ritual,  avowing 
that  the  "work"  could  not  have  been  better  done 
by  white  Masons  themselves.  This  questionable 
compliment  is  cherished  with  pride  by  the 
brother  in  question  to  this  day,  although  he  was 


93 


denied  the  return  of  the  courtesy  of  visitation  by 
these  same  white  Masons. 

The  writer  has  actually  witnessed  the  spec- 
tacle of  a  white  Mason  in  distress  soliciting  re- 
lief from  a  Negro  Mason,  and  then  receiving  the 
same  with  a  patronizing  air  like  the  beggar 
Prince  who  exacted  that  his  peasant  benefactor 
do  obeisance  while  bestowing  upon  him  a  much 
required  charity. 

Your  average  white  American  is  so  subtle  and 
insidious  in  his  condescension  that  most  of  the 
time  the  Negro  finds  himself  dealing  with  him 
on  a  basis  of  implied  inferiority  without  knowing 
how  it  all  came  about.  Indeed,  if  by  the  time  the 
Negro  American  reaches  his  majority,  he  has  not 
acquired  a  consciousness  of  race  inferiority  it 
certainly  is  not  because  his  education  to  that  end 
has  been  neglected.  For  from  the  time  when  he 
first  begins  to  read  about  the  white  face  children 
in  the  picture  books,  until  he  is  finally  laid  away 
in  a  segregated  corner  of  the  burying  ground,  his 
whole  training  and  experience  have  been  well 
calculated  to  impress  upon  him  that  he  is  not 
supposed  to  belong  on  the  same  level  with  his 
fellow  humans  about  him. 

We  venture  to  picture  the  appropriate  per- 
sonal attitude  of  a  Negro  Mason  towards  Masons 
of  the  white  race  whom  he  may  meet:  Those  who 
approach  him  with  a  morbid  curiosity  simply  to 
learn  what  a  Negro  may  make  out  of  the  Insti- 

94 


tution  of  Freemasonry,  he  will  treat  with  de- 
served contempt.  Those  who  bear  themselves 
towards  him  with  supercilious  condescension,  he 
will  Masonically  ignore.  Such  as  treat  him  pre- 
cisely as  though  the  differences  of  race  do  not 
stand  before  the  claims  of  brotherhood,  he  will 
accord  unreserved  communication.  He  will 
evince  no  anxiety  to  "talk  Masonry''  with  every 
white  man  who  may  happen  to  wear  the  square 
and  compasses  in  the  lapel  of  his  coat.  Toward 
the  rare  exception,  the  member  of  the  other  race 
who  is  sincere  in  his  Masonic  advances,  he  will 
be  quiet-mannered  and  modest,  receiving  any 
proffered  Masonic  attention  as  a  matter  of 
course,  and  not  as  a  rare  distinction  conferred. 
Should  he  be  hailed  by  one  of  the  votaries  of  the 
perverted  Masonry  described  in  this  book,  in  dis- 
tress, in  spite  of  the  absence  of  any  claim  upon 
his  charity,  the  true  son  of  Prince  Hall  will  prob- 
ably emulate  the  example  of  the  neighborly  man 
on  the  Jericho  road — even  though  the  Jews  and 
the  Samaritans  have  no  dealings  one  with  the 
other. 


95 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Ancient  Constitutions   Anderson. 

Antiquities  of  Freemasonry   Oliver. 

Encyclopedia  of  Masonry   Macoy-Oliver. 

Five  Periods  of  Masonry   Oliver. 

General  Ahiman  Rezon   Sickels-Macoy. 

History  of  Colored  Freemasonry     ....  Grimshaw. 
History  of  Freemasonry  and  Concordant  Orders  Stillson,  et  al. 

History  of  Freemasonry    Gould. 

History  of  Freemasonry    Mackey-Singleton. 

Illustrations  of  Masonry   Preston. 

Masonic  Jurisprudence   Mackey. 

Masonic  Jurisprudence   Simons. 

Masonic  Jurisprudence  and  Symbolism      .    .  Lawrence. 

Masonic  Law  and  Practice   Lockwood. 

Masonic  Digest   Chase. 

Negro  Masonry   Upton. 

Sundry  Proceedings  of  the  Grand  Lodges  of  Massachusetts,  New 
York,  Quebec,  Pennsylvania,  District  of  Columbia,  South  Caro- 
lina (all  white  bodies),  etc. 


THE  END 


